Christian  Doctrines  : 


A 


COMPENDIUM 

OF 

theology 


BY 

J.  M.  PENDLETON,  D.D., 

PASTOR  OF  THE  BAPTIST  CHURCH,  UPLAND.  PKNNA. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 
1420  Chestnut  Street. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1878,  oy  the 
AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 
fn  the  Oflice  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Waahingtco. 


Wkstcott  & Thomson, 
Stereotypers  and  Electrolypers,  Philada, 


X 


MR^  S A L iSf-E  L.VCROZER, 

FOR  MANY  YEARS  THE  LOVING  AND  DEVOTED  WIFE  OF 

i 

JOHN  P.  CROZER, 


IF  HO  SINCE  HIS  DEATH  HAS  EXEMPLIFIED  THE  DIGNITY  OF  CHRISTIAN  WIDOW 
HOOD;  WHOSE  YEARS  HAVE  BEEN  PROLONGED  TILL  HER  CHILDREN  AND 
GRANDCHILDREN  HAVE  RISEN  UP  TO  CA7,L  HER  “BLESSED;”  WHOSE 
UNIFORM  COURTESY  AND  KINDNESS  HAVE  HAD  MUCH  TO  DO  IN 
MAKING  MY  UPLAND  PASTORATE  PLEASANT;  REGARDING 
HER  CHARACTER  WITH  EXALTED  ADMIRATION, 

AND  WISHING  HER  NAME  TO  BE  FAVOR- 
ABLY KNOWN  WHEREVER  I CAN, 

IN  ANY  WAY,  MAKE 
IT  KNOWN, 


V 


| berg  gUspecifuUg  anb  berg  Affection  itelg  $ebicate  (ji*  Volume. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


PREFACE. 


For  several  years  I have  thought  that  a small  work 
treating  theological  topics  in  an  abridged  form  would  be 
useful,  and  have  at  last  undertaken  to  prepare  such  a vol- 
ume. My  plan  has  been  to  present  in  a concise  manner 
k the  chief  subjects  usually  discussed  at  length  in  works  on 
Systematic  Theology. 

The  wrork  lays  no  claim  to  originality.  While  a few 
ideas  are  my  own,  the  substance  of  the  volume  is  not 
new.  The  same  ideas  may  *be  found  in  books  written 
within  the  last  three  hundred  years,  and  these  ideas  are 
expressed  in  my  own  words,  except  in  extracts  for  which 
due  credit  has  been  given.  No  man  wfto  nas  made 
Theology  a study  for  nearly  half  a century  can  possibly 
tell  the  measure  of  his  indebtedness  to  the  authors  he 
has  read.  I can  make  nothing  more  than  a general  ac- 
knowledgment of  my  obligations. 

Bat  it  has  been  my  purpose  to  present  the  views  of 
theologians  so  far  only  as  those  views  accord  with  the 
teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  The  Bible  is  the  only  au- 
thoritative standard  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice. 

1 * 5 


6 


PREFACE. 


The  questions  in  the  writing  of  every  chapter  have  been, 
“What  saith  the  Scripture?”  “Howreadest  thou?”  Of 
course,  the  views  here  presented  seem  to  me  to  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  word  of  God,  but,  having  had  so  many 
proofs  of  the  fallibility  of  my  opinions,  it  will  not  be 
surprising  if  it  should  be  necessary  to  modify  some  of 
them. 

Every  page  has  been  written  in  the  interest  of  scriptu- 
ral truth,  and  for  its  maintenance.  I trust  that  it  has 
not  been  written  in  vain,  but  that  the  blessing  of  God 
will  go  with  the  volume  which  is  now  sent  forth. 

My  days  are  passing  away,  and  I shall  be  soon  num- 
bered with  the  dead.  I would  not  be  entirely  forgotten 
when  I die.  Still,  my  desire  of  posthumous  fame  comes 
within  narrow  limits:  it  amounts  only  to  this — a wish 
that  some,  profited  by  the  Compendium  of  Theology, 
may,  when  their  kindness  prompts  them  to  go  to  my 
grave,  thank  God  that  I lived. 

J.  M.  P. 

Upland,  Pa.,  April  15,  1878 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 

rial 

Thu  Being  of  God 11 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Bible  a Revelation  from  God 23 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Attributes  of  God 42 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Trinity 64 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Deity  of  Christ 72 

CHAPTER  VI. 

I 

The  Personality  and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.... 91 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Purposes  of  God 97 

7 


8 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

PAOK 

Creation 115 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Providence... 128  ^ /3 

CHAPTER  X. 

Angels 138 

v-.  • - - \ 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Man — in  his  Original  State— in  his  Fall— and  in  his 
Present  State 157 

CHAPTER  XH. 

Man  Needs  a Saviour 176 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  Promised  Saviour 186 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Person  op  Christ * 198 

CHAPTER  XV. 

The  Mediatorial  Office  of  Christ 208 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

The  Atonement  of  Christ 221 


* CONTENTS.  9 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

PAGB 

The  Intercession  of  Christ 246 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Regeneration,  with  its  Attendants,  Repentance  and 
Faith 256 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Justification , 274 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Adoption 290 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

Sanctification 298 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

Good  Works 312 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Perseverance  of  Saints.... 321 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

The  Church 329 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

Baptism 342 


10 

CONTENTS.  * 

Lord’s  Supper 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

PAG* 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

Death  of  Christians,  and  the  Intermediate  State, 


The  Kesurrection 

CHAPTER  XXVIII.  / 

lO  • r •• 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 
Tiie  General  Judgment 

CHAPTER  XXX. 


Heaven  and  Hell 


399 


Christian  Doctrines: 

A • 

COMPENDIUM  OF  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  BEING  OF  GOD. 

The  first  words  in  the  Bible  are  these:  “In  the  te« 
ginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.”  Gen.  i.  1. 
Here  the  important  fact  of  creation  is  declared,  and  the 
sublimest  of  all  truths — namely,  the  existence  of  God — is 
taken  for  granted.  There  is  no  array  of  arguments  to 
prove  that  there  is  a God,  but  it  is  simply  assumed. 
Moses,  under  divine  inspiration,  had  no  doubt  the  best 
reasons  for  the  course  he  adopted,  and  it  would  probably 
have  been  better  for  the  interests  of  truth  had  some  spec- 
ulative theologians  copied  his  example.  To  attempt  to 
be  “wise  above  what  is  written”  is  great  folly. 

The  existence  of  God  is  the  greatest  of  mysteries. 
Neither  man  nor  angel  can  comprehend  it.  There  must 
be  heights  and  depths  in  the  Infinite  that  can  never  be 
measured  by  the  finite.  “ Canst  thou  by  searching  4iud 
out  God  ? Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  unto  per- 
fection? It  is  as  high  as  heaven;  what  canst  thou  do? 
deeper  than  hell ; what  canst  thou  know?  The  measure 
thereof  is  longer  than  the  earth  and  broader  than  the 
sea.”  Job  xi.  7,  8,  9. 


12 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


whose  existence  are  in  him“lf  „e  °“USes  of 

h*m  lhe?  i!  SUCh 

.re  al,  tM’  to  sf' 

ari=SS 

man  can  know  something  about  himself  v h ^ 
came  ; something  about  the  world,  whence  it  Tnran 
something  about  the  universe,  why  it  exists.  If  there  !s 
no  God,  nothing  can  be  satisfactorily  known  and  a 

answer  is  not  sufficient,  we 

sTr7vrtoCahre  *T  We  *"  “ i-tituM1 

2:-rrr„sr 


THE  BEING  OF  GOD . 


13 


finite,  can  be  numbered ; for  there  is  not  and  cannot  be 
an  endless  succession  of  them.  Tracing  effects  and 
secondary  causes  as  far  as  possible,  we  reach  the  First 
Cause.  Here  we  stop,  for  we  can  go  no  further.  The 
constitution  of  the  human  mind  finds  its  limits  at  this 
point.  The  First  Cause  is  another  name  for  God.  All 
secondary  causes  are  dependent  on  the  First  Cause,  but 
the  First  Cause  is  absolutely  independent.  Jehovah 
is  “ God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever.” 

The  capacity  of  man  to  know  that  there  is  a God  is 
recognized  by  Paul  in  these  words : “ Because  that  which 
may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them ; for  God  hath 
shewed  it  unto  them.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him 
from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being 
understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,'  even  his  eter- 
nal power  and  Godhead ; so  that  they  are  without  ex- 
cuse.” Rom.  i.  19,  20.  It  is  worthy  of  special  notice  that 
the  apostle  in  this  language  refers  to  idolatrous  heathen 
nations.  He  tells  us  that  they  know  enough  of  God  to 
render  them  inexcusable  in  their  idolatry.  Whence 
comes  their  knowledge?  Evidently  from  their  ability 
to  infer  from  the  works  of  creation  the  existence  of  a 
Creator.  This  inference  has  been  drawn  in  all  ages — 
“from  the  creation  of  the  world.”  It  should  perhaps 
be  said  that  some  of  the  best  scholars  give  to  from  in 
this  passage  the  meaning  since . The  translation  of  Dr. 
Noyes  is  this : “ For,  ever  since  the  creation  of  the  world, 
his  invisible  attributes,  even  his  eternal  power  and  divin- 
ity, being  perceived  from  his  works,  are  clearly  seen,  so 
that  they  might  be  without  excuse.”1  The  idea,  accord- 
ing to  this  translation,  is  that  at  all  periods  since  the  world 

1 The  New  Testament:  Translated  from  the  Greek  Text  of  Tischendorf 
By  George  K.  Noyes,  D.  D The  general  excellence  of  this  translation 
is  unquestionable 
2 


14 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


was  made  the  human  mind  has  been  able  to  recognize  the 
invisible  attributes,  the  “ eternal  power  and  divinity,”  of 
the  Creator.  These  “ invisible  things  ” are  perceived  or 
understood  by  u the  things  that  are  made,”  so  that  it  is 
undeniably  true  that  things  made  suggest  a Maker,  and 
works  imply  a Worker.  It  is  also  beyond  question  that 
man,  in  inferring  the  existence  of  a Creator,  must  attrib- 
ute to  him  “ eternal  power.”  Creation  in  the  absence  of 
pqwer  is  equally  impossible  and  absurd.  There  can  be 
no  higher  view  of  power  than  that  suggested  by  the  pro- 
duction of  something  out  of  nothing.  This  power,  too, 
is  manifestly  eternal.  That  is  to  say,  it  must  have  exist- 
ed before  it  was  exerted  and  manifested  in  creation.  Its 
existence  clearly  antedates  creation,  and  everything  before 
creation  is  eternal.  In  our  conceptions  of  duration  we 
can  go  back  through  intervening  centuries  to  creation, 
but  beyond  that  demonstration  of  Almighty  power  our 
thoughts  are  lost  in  the  recesses  of  eternity.  The  power 
which  created  all  things  must  be  eternal  power. 

Nor  is  this  power  impersonal.  Paul  refers  to  the  u in- 
visible things  of  him  ” to  whom  he  applies  the  term 
“ Godhead  ” — a term  suggestive  of  personality.  If  there 
is  a Godhead,  there  is  a God,  and  he  is  a personal  being. 
The  simplest  idea  of  power  is  that  of  ability  to  do  some- 
thing ; and  the  ability  is  either  inherent  or  in  actual  ex- 
ercise— that  is,  it  exists  in  a quiescent  state,  or  it  is 
developed  in  action.  In  popular  speech  the  word 
powrer  is  used  with  some  latitude  of  meaning.  We 
speak  of  the  power  of  wealth,  the  power  of  govern- 
ment, the  power  of  gravitation,  or  the  power  of  Nature. 
A little  reflection,  however,  will  convince  us  that  there  is 
in  wealth  no  power  apart  from  those  who  possess  and  use 
it.  There  is  in  government  no  power  independent  of 
those  who  govern.  There  is  no  power  of  gravitation  cr 


THE  BEING  OF  GOD . 


15 


power  of  Nature  which  God  has  not  given.  Witnessing 
some  of  the  movements  of  matter — for  example,  the  op- 
eration of  machinery  which  turns  ten  thousand  spindles, 
or  the  train  of  cars  obediently  following  the  dashing  loco* 
motive — we  thoughtlessly  exclaim,  “What  power!”  We 
forget  how  long  intellect  was  at  work  before  the  way  to 
turn  those  spindles  was  invented  and  the  majestic  run- 
ning of  a railroad  train  became  an  actual  thing.  It  was 
mind  that  arranged  and  controlled  matter  so  wondrously 
as  to  excite  the  admiration  of  the  world.  I present  this 
illustration  to  show  that  power,  in  its  inferior  operations, 
belongs  to  mind,  or  spirit,  and  not  to  matter.  Much  more 
does  power,  in  the  highest  meaning  of  the  word,  belong 
to  the  Supreme  Spirit.  David  well  says  that  “ power  be- 
longeth  unto  God.”  Ps.  lxii.  11.  I cannot  so  well  express 
my  view  of  the  superiority  of  mind  to  matter  as  by  quot- 
ing from  Robert  Hall’s  sermon  on  “ The  Spirituality  of 
the  Divine  Nature.” 1 He  says : “ There  is  a vulgar  prej- 
udice in  favor  of  matter  and  against  spirit,  as  if  the 
former  were  possessed  of  great  force,  while  the  latter  is 
only  invested  with  a feeble  degree  of  energy.  Hence, 
in  contemplating  the  operations  of  the  elements  of  Na- 
ture, producing  great  and  important  changes,  we  are  apt 
to  think  of  matter,  and  of  matter  in  its  most  gross  and 
palpable  form.  This- prejudice  arises  from  our  mistaking 
secondary  and  remote  effects  for  causes,  allowing  them 
therefore  to  terminate  our  view,  instead  of  ascending  from 
those  laws  of  Nature  which  God  has  established  to  him- 
self the  Supreme  Cause.  These  changes  certainly  indicate 
the  existence  of  great  power,  which,  at  the  first  view,  we 
are  apt  to  connect  with  the  material  part  of  the  system. 
We  are  also  acquainted  in  a measure  with  the  mechanical 
forces,  and,  seeing  that  these  are  exerted  through  the 
1 Hall’s  Works , Harpers’  edition,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  296-298. 


16 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


medium  of  matter,  we  are  thence  led  to  suppose  that 
to  be  the  source  of  power.  We  find  that  we  are  incapa- 
ble of  operating  on  matter,  of  moving  even  an  atom,  by 
a mere  act  of  our  will ; a material  medium  is  necessary  to 
enable  us  to  produce  the  slightest  change  on  the  objects 
of  Nature ; and  if  a material  substance  is  brought  to  bear 
upon  them,  the  most  important  effects  are  produced.  We 
have  no  power  of  operating  on  the  objects  immediately 
around  us  but  by  means  of  our  bodies ; and  the  changes 
that  take  place  are  always  connected  with  certain  motions 
in  them,  which  enable  us  to  come  into  contact  with  the 
visible  world.  Hence,  we  are  apt  to  terminate  our  ideas 
of  power  in  matter.  But  in  these  cases  it  is  mind,  and 
mind  alone,  which  is  the  seat  of  power.  The  influence 
which  our  bodies  have  upon  other  bodies,  whereby  their 
relative  position  is  changed,  is  merely  a secondary  effect — 
an  effect  of  that  act  of  will  which  produces  the  motion 
of  our  bodies.  The  power  by  which  all  changes  are  ef- 
fected through  the  instrumentality  of  the  body  resides 
immediately  in  the  mind.  It  is  that  mysterious  princi- 
ple, called  Will,  which  the  Divine  Being  has  invested  with 
a control  over  the  various  parts  of  our  bodies ; nor  have 
we  power  to  alter  the  state  of  a single  external  thing,  in 
the  least  degree,  except  by  means  of  volition,  which  is  a 
mental  power  operating  immediately  upon  the  body.  No 
other  account  can  be  given  of  this  capacity  but  that  the 
Divine  Being  has  endowed  us  with  instantaneous  control 
over  the  muscular  parts  of  our  bodies.  We  can  conceive 
nothing  intermediate  between  the  act  of  the  will  and  the 
movement  of  the  muscles.  So  complete,  indeed,  is  the 
dominion  of  mind  over  matter  that  the  moment  we  will 
a certain  motion  in  the  body  it  takes  place,  and  thus  only 
are  we  enabled  to  effect  changes  in  the  system  of  sur* 
rounding  Nature.  We  probably  derive  our  idea  of  power 


THE  BEING  OF  GOD. 


17 


from  the  changes  we  see  effected  in  this  manner,  bnt  all 
these  changes  resolve  themselves  into  acts  of  the  will.  It 
is  therefore  plain  that  power  resides  in  the  mind,  and  that 
matter  is  in  these  respects  only  the  instrument  of  mind, 
which  in  the  first  instance  acts,  which  alone  properly  acts, 
and  becomes  the  author  of  all  the  subsequent  changes. 
Mind,  indeed,  to  a certain  extent  and  within  a certain 
sphere,  is  absolute  power,  and  whatever  motions  it  wills 
instantly  take  place.  Though  we  are  far  from  supposing 
for  a moment  that  the  Divine  Being  is  the  soul  of  the 
universe,  or  that  he  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  visible 
world  as  the  soul  does  to  the  body — a notion  replete  with 
absurdity  and  impiety — yet  the  power  which  the  mind 
exerts  over  the  whole  of  our  corporeal  system  may  afford 
an  apt  illustration  of  that  control  which  the  Deity  exer- 
cises over  the  universe.  We  will  a certain  motion  in  the 
muscles  of  our  body,  and  immediately  it  takes  place; 
nothing  is  perceived  to  intervene  between  the  act  of  the 
will  and  the  subsequent  motion.  By  the  mysterious  con- 
stitution of  our  nature  we  are  capable,  from  a very  early 
period  of  life,  of  putting  into  instantaneous  motion  the 
right  set  of  muscles  for  producing  a certain  change,  but 
nothing  intervenes  between  the  volition  and  the  change. 
In  vain  do  we  inquire  how  this  takes  place,  because  we 
can  find  nothing  which  comes  between  the  operation 
of  the  will  and  the  change  produced  in  our  corporeal 
frame. 

“ Conceive  the  Divine  Being  as  a Spirit,  having  the 
same  dominion  over  the  invisible  universe,  in  every  part 
of  space,  as  that  which  our  minds  possess  over  every 
portion  of  our  bodies ; and  then  you  will  perceive,  faintly 
at  least,  the  origin  of  that  power  the  indications  of  which 
are  so  visible  throughout  the  universe.  He  has  only  tc 
will  the  most  important  changes,  and  they  are  instantly 


18 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


accomplished.  ‘He  speaks,  and  it  is  done;  he  com- 
mands, and  it  stands  fast.’  He  said,  ‘Let  there  be  light, 
and  there  was  light.’  No  causes  intervene  between  the 
volition  and  the  change  which  ensues,  for  the  will  of  the 
Deity  is  itself  the  effect.  Being  an  Infinite  Spirit  and 
coming  into  immediate  contact  with  all  the  parts  of  the 
universe,  he  is  capable,  by  a mere  act  of  will,  of  effecting 
all  possible  changes  in  the  same  manner,  but  in  an 
infinitely  higher  degree,  as  we  are  capable,  by  an  act  ol 
our  will,  of  causing  certain  motions  in  the  muscular 
parts  of  our  body,  and  thus  producing  changes  in  the 
external  objects  around  us. 

“We  shall  find  it  impossible  to  give  any  account  of 
innumerable  changes  which  are  continually  taking  place 
in  the  visible  world,  without  tracing  them  up  to  mind. 
There  cannot  be  a clearer  proof  of  a Deity  than  the 
existence  of  motion.  This  evidently  appears  not  to  be 
essential  to  matter,  because  we  see  a very  great  portion 
of  the  material  universe  without  it.  Not  being,  therefore, 
an  original  state  of  matter,  but  merely  an  incident,  it  must 
be  an  effect.  But  since  matter,  not  being  intelligent,  can- 
not be  the  cause  of  its  own  motion — and  yet  we  cannot 
conceive  of  any  atom  beginning  to  move  without  a 
cause — that  cause  must  be  found  out  of  itself.  Whatever 
may  be  the  nearest  cause  or  the  number  of  secondary 
causes,  though  innumerable  portions  of  matter  may  be 
reciprocally  moved — though  the  series  of  links  in  the 
chain  through  which  motion  is  propagated  may  be 
indefinitely  multiplied — we  must,  in  order  to  arrive  at 
the  origin  of  these  various  phenomena,  ascend  to  mind, 
terminate  our  inquiries  in  spirit ; nor  can  we  account  foi 
the  beginning,  much  less  for  the  continuance  and  exten- 
sion, of  motion,  unless  we  trace  it  to  the  will  of  that 
Being  who  is  the  Cause  of  all  causes — the  great  Original 


THE  BEING  OF  GOD . 


19 


Mover  in  the  universe.  Power  is,  therefore,  the  attribute 
of  mind ; instrumentality,  that  of  body.  When  we  read 
in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  most  exalted  achievements 
ascribed  to  angelic  spirits,  we  cannot  suppose  that  it  is 
owing  to  any  gross  materialism  which  they  possess';  on 
the  contrary,  they  have  no  bodies  capable  of  being  inves- 
tigated by  our  senses ; and  in  proportion  as  they  are  more 
attenuated  do  they  possess  greater  power.  We  have 
reason  to  believe . that  all  finite  minds  are  under  the 
direction  of  the  Supreme  Power,  who,  without  destroy- 
ing their  accountability  or  interfering  with  their  agency, 
makes  all  their  operations  subservient  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  counsels.  Hence  all  opposition  to  the  Deity 
is  beautifully  represented  by  Isaiah,  as  if  the  instrument 
should  rebel  against  him  that  wields  it,  as  if  ‘the  rod 
should  shake  itself  against  them  that  lift  it  up.’  . . . 
All  created  beings  in  this  respect  are  but  instruments  in 
the  hand  of  the  Deity,  whose  will  is  sovereign  over  them. 
The  Divine  Being,  as  the  great  Father  of  spirits,  com- 
bines within  himself  all  the  separate  energies  of  the 
universe.  He  is  the  source,  origin,  and  fountain  of  all 
power  diffused  through  creation.  The  very  minds  which 
he  has  formed  are  kept  in  mysterious  subordination,  and 
can  never  overstep  the  bounds  he  has  assigned  them. 
i Once  have  I heard  this,  that  power  belongs  unto  God.’  ” 
It  is  needless  to  call  special  attention  to  this  quotation 
from  the  writings  of  one  of  the  most  eloquent  men  of 
modern  times,  for  the  view  presented  is  too  striking  to 
pass  unnoticed.  The  prominent  thought  is  that  mind,  or 
spirit,  is  the  residence  of  power.  In  a subordinate  sense 
this  is  true  of  finite  spirits,  and  in  the  highest  sense  it  is 
true  of  the  Infinite  Spirit.  This  Spirit  we  call  God,  the 
great  First  Cause  of  all  things,  himself  uncaused.  He  is, 
therefore,  self-existent;  for  there  can  be  no  reasons  why 


20 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


he  exists  that  do  not  inhere  in  himself.  He  existed 
before  there  were  any  angels,  any  men,  any  worlds,  and 
consequently  none  of  the  causes  of  his  existence  could 
be  external  to  himself.  They  are  intrinsic  causes,  found 
in  himself  alone  ; and  if  all  created  things  should  sink 
into  the  abyss  of  nothingness,  such  a disaster  would 
affect  the  existence  of  the  Supreme  Spirit  as  little  as  the 
quenching  of  the  glow-worm’s  spark  would  affect  the  sun 
in  the  heavens.  What  a Being  is  God ! How  incompre- 
hensible I The  idea  of  self-existence  overwhelms  us,  but 
the  constitution  of  the  human  mind  is  such  as  to  require 
us  to  believe  that  there  is  a self-existent  Being,  the  cause 
of  all  finite  existence.  Paul,  as  we  have  seen,  refers  to 
his  “eternal  power  and  Godhead,”  the  indications  of 
which  are  so  evident  from  the  works  of  creation  that 
idolaters  among  heathen  nations  are  without  excuse. 

There  is  a God.  In  this  fact  we  find  an  explanation 
of  many  things  otherwise  inexplicable.  The  mind  re- 
poses on  this  fact,  and  finds  satisfaction.  It  can  be 
satisfied  in  no  other  way.  It  revolts  from  the  doctrine 
of  fate — that  all  things  exist,  and  have  existed  from 
eternity,  by  inevitable  necessity,  so  that  there  has  been 
no  creation  at  all.  The  mind  of  man  in  its  normal  state 
cannot  accept  this  doctrine,  but  protests  against  it  as 
entirely  unsatisfactory,  because  utterly  unreasonable.  Nor 
is  the  human  mind  satisfied  with  the  opposite  doctrine  of 
chance.  That  all  things  exist  by  chance  is  a theory  that 
had  its  advocates  in  ancient  times,  and  it  is  virtually 
defended  by  men  now  living.  There  is  a denial  of  crea- 
tion in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term — fate  is  ridiculed — 
and  it  is  supposed  that  the  material  universe  was  con- 
structed out  of  atoms  fortuitously  coming  together  from 
realms  unknown,  and  giving  no  account  of  themselves. 
Now,  these  two  systems — Fate  and  Chance — equally  excite 


THE  BEING  OF  GOD. 


21 


the  revulsion  of  the  well-balanced  intellect.  The  capital 
objection  to  both  is  that  they  exclude  God  from  the  uni* 
verse.  They  have  no  use  for  the  existence  of  a Supreme 
Being  to  control  all  things,  from  the  revolution  of  a 
planet  to  the  fall  of  a sparrow.  They  are  far  as  the 
poles  apart  in  their  distinctive  teachings,  but  they  are 
agreed  in  endorsing  wThat,  in  David’s  day,  the  fool  said 
in  his  heart,  “ There  is  no  God.”  There  is  no  satisfac- 
tory way  of  accounting  for  the  existence  of  this  world  or 
any  other  world  unless  wre  admit  that  there  is  a God,  the 
Omnipotent  Creator  of  all  things.  What  the  mind  of 
man  calls  for  and  presents  as  its  first  postulate  is,  Let 
there  be  a God. 

While  it  is  true  that  we  cannot  satisfactorily  explain 
why  the  world  exists  if  there  is  no  God,  it  is  also  true 
that  the  indications  of  design  are  unaccountable  if  a 
Supreme  Intelligence  does  not  preside  over  all  things. 
We  see  evidences  • of  adaptation  all  around  us.  The 
world  seems  to  be  adapted  to  man  and  to  other  animals, 
and  they  seem  to  be  suited  to  the  world.  The  soil  is 
adapted  to  such  productions  as  are  necessary  to  the  sup- 
port of  physical  life.  The  lungs  and  the  air  are  adapted 
each  to  the  other.  Birds  are  fitted  for  the  air,  and  fishes 
for  the  sea.  There  is  adaptation  everywhere  and  in 
every  thing ; and  adaptation,  so  far  as  we  are  capable  of 
judging,  indicates  intelligence  and  design.  Intelligence 
and  design  are  not  properties  of  matter,  but  attributes  of 
spirit.  Where  there  is  intelligence  there  is  mind,  and 
where  there  is  design  it  must  be  the  result  of  in- 
telligence, and  there  must  be  a Designer.  If,  then,  the 
many  instances  of  adaptation  visible  everywhere  aye 
suggestive  of  design,  the  question  arises,  “Who  is  the 
Designer  ?”  and  the  only  answer  is,  “ God,  the  Creator 
and  Ruler  of  all  things.”  One  of  the  most  obvious  indi- 


22 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


cations  of  design  is  to  be  seen  in  the  provision  made  foi 
the  perpetuity  of  the  human  race.  The  two  sexes  are 
about  equal  in  numbers,  and  it  is  utterly  incredible  that 
this  is  the  result  of  accident.  There  must  be  design,  and 
when  we  look  into  the  matter  in  the  light  of  the  Bible, 
we  shall  see  that  the  existence  of  the  two  sexes  is  the 
basis  of  the  marriage  relation;  which  relation  contem- 
plates the  promotion  of  human  happiness,  the  preserva- 
tion of  social  order,  and  the  continuance  of  the  race. 
All  this  shows  purpose,  and  Where  there  is  purpose  affect- 
ing the  condition,  and  even  the  existence,  of  the  human 
race,  who  will  say  that  there  is  not  an  intelligent  and 
almighty  Purposer? 

These  are  suggestions  rather  than  elaborate  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  existence  of  a God,  the  First  Cause  of  all 
things,  infinite  in  power  and  boundless  in  wisdom.  To 
this  God  we  may  say,  in  the  reverent  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, “ Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  earth;  and  the  heavens  are  the  -works  of  thine 
hands.  They  shall  perish,  but  thou  remainest ; and  they 
all  shall  wax  old  as  doth  a garment;  and  as  a vesture 
shalt  thou  fold  them  up,  and  .they  shall  be  changed ; but 
thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not  fail.”  Heb. 
L 10-1?. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  GOD . 


For  many  centuries  there  has  been  in  the  world  a book 
claiming  to  be  The  Bible — that  is,  The  Booh.  There  is  no 
book  like  to  it.  It  has  had,  and  still  has,  more  earnest 
friends  and  more  bitter  enemies  than,  any  other.  Multi- 
tudes have  submitted  to  martyrdom  rather  than  abjure 
its  teachings,  and  have  been  cheered  by  its  promises 
when  earth  has  receded  from  their  view.  On  the  other 
hand,  greater  efforts  have  been  made  to  destroy  the  Bible 
than  were  ever  put  forth  for  the  destruction  of  any  other 
book.  Its  foes  have  persistently  attempted  to  arrest  its 
influence.  Criticism  has  assailed  it  and  ridicule  has 
derided  it.  Science  and  philosophy  have  been  invoked 
to  discredit  it.  Astronomy"  in  the  disclosure  of  its  heav- 
enly wonders  has  been  asked  for  some  fact  to  disparage 
it,  and  geology  in  its  researches  in  the  earth  has  been 
importuned  to  throw  suspicion  on  it. 

The  Bible,  however,  yet  has  a place  in  the  world. 
There  are  more  copies  of  it  in  circulation  to-day  than 
ever  before.  Written  originally  in  Hebrew  and  Greek, 
it  has  been  translated  into  hundreds  of  languages,  so 
that  poetry  breathes  historical  truth  in  the  words, 

“ Dialects  unheard  at  Babel  or  at  Jewish  Pentecost 
Now  first  articulate  divinest  sounds, 

And  swell  the  universal  anthem.” 


23 


24 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


In  view  of  these  facts,  whatever  men  may  think  of  the 
Bible,  it  must  be  conceded  that  it  is  a wonderful  book — 
wonderful  in  its  effects  and  in  its  history.  But  different 
opinions  are  entertained  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Bible. 
Some  do  not  hesitate  to  assign  to  it  a human  origin. 
This  is  the  position  of  Deists,  who,  as  their  designation 
denotes,  believe  in  the  existence  of  God.  They  believe 
also  in  his  wisdom  and  goodness,  but  they  suppose  that 
the  volume  of  Nature  and  the  teachings  of  reason  are 
sufficient,  without  such  a revelation  as  Christians  con- 
sider the  Bible  to  be.  This  is  a very  weak  point  in 
Deism,  for  the  system  not  only  grants  that  God  is  good 
to  men,  but  glories  in  it.  If  this  be  so,  then  it  is  surely 
reasonable  to  expect  from  him  a supernatural  revelation 
of  his  will.  The  reasonableness  of  this  expectation 
grows  out  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  light  of  Nature  to 
teach  men  all  that  they  need  to  know.  The  rational 
inference  from  the  goodness  of  God  is  that  he  will  not 
leave  his  creatures  in  comparative  darkness.  It  is  more 
accordant  with  his  benevolence  to  believe  that  he  has 
given  his  word  to  be  “ a lamp  to  their  feet  and  a light  to 
their  path.” 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  make  a distinction  between 
Deists  and  Rationalists.  The  latter  are  so  excessively 
addicted  to  the  inculcations  of  reason,  and  attach  so 
much  importance  thereto,  that  they  reject  the  teachings 
of  the  Bible  unless  its  doctrines  accord  with  their  Ration- 
alistic views.  Admitting,  as  some  of  them  do,  that  God 
lms  spoken  in  his  word,  they,  in  the  plentitude  of  their 
self-conceit,  attempt  to  decide  how  much  of  what  he  has 
said  harmonizes  with  reason.  The  attitude  they  assume 
is  fatal  to  a fair  and  candid  examination  of  the  Bible. 

In  opposition  tc  the  views  of  Deists,  Rationalists,  and 
all  kindred  errorists,  I maintain  that  the  Bible  is  a super- 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  GOD . 


25 


human  production — that  it  is  the  book  of  God,  properly 
so  called,  because  it  contains  a revelation  from  him. 
Before  attempting  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  a revelation 
from  God  it  may  be  well  to  refer  to  the  necessity  of  such 
a revelation.  The  necessity,  it  may  be  argued,  does  not 
prove  that  the  revelation  has  been  given.  Even  so, 
but  it  creates  an  antecedent  probability  in  favor  of  a 
revelation. 

The  necessity  of  a divine  revelation  is  suggested  by 
such  considerations  as  the  following : 

\ 1.  Without  it , there  cannot  be  such  knowledge  of  God  as  is 
essential  to  acceptable  worship.  While  it  is  true,  as  has  been 
seen  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  heathen  nations  are 
not  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  a Supreme  Being,  it  can- 
not be  maintained  that  they  have  sufficient  knowledge 
of  his  character  to  render  them  intelligent  and  acceptable 
worshippers.  The  existence  and  the  character  of  God  are 
distinct  from  each  other.  (His  existence  may  be  recog- 
nized when  there  is  no  satisfactory  knowledge  of  his  cha- 
racter^] To  know  that  God  exists  does  not  determine  how 
he  is  to  be  worshipped.  There^must  be  knowledge  of  his 
character.  His  character  is  what  he  is,  and  we  must 
know  his  character  to  render  him  acceptable  service. 
Can  his  character  be  known  without  a revelation  from 
himself?  Let  us  see.  (As  we  may  know  something  of 
what  are  called  God’s  natural  attributes  from  the  proofs 
of  his  existence  around  us,  it  may  be  said  that  we  are  not 
ignorant  of  what  may  be  termed  his  intellectual  charac- 
ter. This  is  true,  for  we  have  conceptions  of  his  wisdom, 
pmver,  greatness,  and  of  other  natural  attributes.  But 
what  can  we  say  of  his  moral  character,  made  up  of  his 
moral  perfections  ? The  light  of  Nature  does  not  reveal 
it,  and  the  deductions  of  man’s  reason  do  not  disclose  it. 
This,  too,  is  the  very  point  on  which  information  is  need 

3 


26 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


ed ; for  G od,  if  worshipped  at  all,  must  be  worshipped  in 
his  moral  character.  His  natural  perfections  may  excite 
our  Intellectual  admiration,  but  cannot  awaken  our  love, 
hove,  however,  is  the  central  idea  of  worship,  and  there 
can  be  no  true  worship  without  it.  The  injunction, 
“ Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,”  commends  itself 
to  every  man’s  common  sense.  But  those  excellences 
of  the  divine  character  which  excite  love  cannot  be 
known  without  a divine  revelation.  Surely,  then,  the 
necessity  of  such  a revelation  cannot  be  denied. 

2.  Without  a revelation , it  is  impossible  to  fix  the  standard 
of  moral  right  and  wro^.  This  point,  considered  in  its 
relation  tcTttor  foregoing,  is  too  plain  to  need  much  elab- 
oration. Every  one  can  see  that  ignorance  of  the  moral 
character  of  God  renders  the  adoption  of  a correct  rule 
of  morals  impossible.  What  is  right  or  what  is.  wrong 
must  ever  depend  on  what  God  is.  In  his  nature  are 
found  the  elements  of  all  that  is  right.  The  origin  of 
right  is  traceable  to  the  nature  rather  than  to  the  will  of 
God,  though  his  will  m ist  be  in  accordance  writh  his  na- 
ture \What  I mean  to  say  is,  that  things,  strictly  speak- 
ing,  are  not  right  because  God  wills  them,  but  that  he 
wills  them  because  they  are  right.\  Whatever  is  in 
harmony  with  the  moral  character  of  God  is  right,  and 
whatever  is  in  conflict  with  it  is  wrong.  Here,  then,  we 
see  how  the  standard  of  duty  is  to  be  established  among 
men,  for  their  duties  to  one  another  grow  out  of  their 
duties  to  God.  The  second  commandment,  “ Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  ” — that  is,  thy  fellow-creature — “ as  thy- 
self,” i3  like  the  first,  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God.”  Obligations  grow  out  of  relations.  The  highest 
‘relation  is  that  between  the  creature  and  the  Creator,  and 
therefore  in  this  relation  obligation  shows  its  supreme 
strength  ; but  there  is  a subordinate . relation  between 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  GOD . 27 


creattUres  themselves,  out  of  which  mutual  relation  mu- 
tual duties  arise.  It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however, 
that  we  should  love  our  fellow-creatures  primarily  be- 
cause they  are  the  creatures  of  God , and  secondarily  be- 
cause they  are  our  fellow-creatures.  Love  to  God  inspires 
love  to  men,  and  prompts  the  performance  of  the  duties 
we  ow^e  to  men  in  the  various  relations  of  life.  This  we 
see  where  the  influence  of  the  Bible  is  felt;  but  if  God 
had  not  given  us  the  Bible,  how  could  the  standard  of 
duty  be  known?  Ignorant  of  his  moral  character,  we 
should  be  utterly  finable  to  settle  the  question  of  right 
and  wrong.  This  view  receives  confirmation  from  the 
inadequate  and  variable  standards  of  morals  among  an- 
cient, and  also  among  modern,  heathen  nations.  Even 
the  ancient  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Romans,  with  all  their 
mental  cultivation,  were  very  ignorant  on  moral  subjects 
— a fact  which  shows  that  there  is  no  necessary  connection 
between  intellectual  culture  and  moral  rectitude.  As  to 
modern  heathen  nations,  our  missionaries  tell  us  that  in 
them  is  exemplified  the  repulsive  depravity  described  by 
Paul  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
The  more  their  deplorable  condition  is  studied,  the  more 
manifest  will  be  the  necessity  of  a revelation  from  God. 
^ 3.  Without  a revelation,  a future  state  must  be  a matter  of 
conjecture.  Ancient  philosophers  speculated  concerning 
it,  some  professed  to  believe  it,  some  wished  to  believe 
it,  and  others  denied  it,  while  others  still  ridicu  ed  it 
Julius  Caesar  said  in  a speech  in  the  Roman  Senate — 
for  he  was  an  orator  as  well  as  a warrior — “To  those 
that  live  in  sorrow  and  misery  death  is  a repose  from 
their  calamities,  not  a torment : it  puts  an  end  to  all  the 
evils  that  mortals  are  subject  to,  and  beyond  it  there 
is  nc  place  left  for  anguish  or  joy.”  Pliny,  who  lived 
some  time  after  Cresar,  expressed  himself  thus:  “AD 


28 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


men  are  in  the  same  condition  after  their  last  day  as 
before  their  first;  nor  have  they  any  more  sense,  either 
in  body  or  soul,  after  they  are  dead  than  before  they 
were  born.”1 

These  two  great  men  were  doubtless  representative  men, 
Others  espoused  the  views  they  advocated,  and  before 
them  all  was  the  gloomy  abyss  of  annihilation.  Some 
of  the  Greek  philosophers  had  held  substantially  the 
same  views,  and  one  of  the  Greek  poets  had  eloquently 
exclaimed  in  language  which  has  been  translated  thus : 

“ Alas  1 the  tender  herbs  and  flowery  tribes, 

Though  crushed  by  winter’s  unrelenting  hand, 

Revive  and  rise  when  vernal  zephyrs  call. 

But  we,  the  brave,  the  mighty,  and  the  wise, 

Bloom,  flourish,  fade,  and  fall;  and  then  succeeds 
A long,  long,  silent,  dark,  oblivious  sleep — 

A sleep  which  no  propitious  power  dispels, 

Nor  changing  seasons,  nor  revolving  years.” 

Thus  hopeless  was  the  future  to  many  of  ancient  times, 
and  others,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Cicero,  while 
reading  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  accepted  the  doctrine,  and  laying  down  their  books 
gave  it  up.  If  there  is  a future  state,  doubtless  there  will 
be  in  it  rewards  for  the  righteous  and  punishments  for  the 
wicked.  How  important,  then,  to  be  assured  of  such  a 
state ! Most  men  who  think  at  all  will  ask,  “ Whither 
do  we  go?”  as  well  as,  “ Whence  did  we  come?”  The 
restless  spirit  wants,  an  answer  to  such  questions.  Surely 
it  is  desirable  to  have  some  assurance  concerning  the 
mysterious  future;  and  how  can  it  be  obtained  apart 
from  revelation?  “ Faith  is  a conviction  of  things  not 

1 Quoted  in  Leland’s  Advantage  and  Necessity  of  the  Christian  R&& 
lation , vol.  ii.  p.  387. 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  Q01).  29 

Been.”1  But  faith  rests  on  testimony,  and  testimony 
implies  a revelation  from  God ; for  he  alone  can  testify 
to  a future  state,  he  being  “ the  high  and  lofty  One  who 
inhabits  eternity,”  with  whom  “ one  day  is  as  a thousand 
years,  and  a thousand  years  as  one  day.” 

With  regard  to  a future  state  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ments, it  may  be  said  that  a belief  in  such  a state  supplies 
strong  m )tives  to  stimulate  to  the  doing  of  that  which  is 
right  and  to  the  avoidance  of  that  which  is  wrong.  For, 
whatever  theorists  may  say,  it  is  practically  true  that 
self-interest  appeals  to  men,  while  hope  and  fear  are  the 
two  powerful  springs  of  human  action.  A belief  that 
the  rewards  and  punishments  of  a future  state  will  be 
distributed  according  to  the  characters  that  men  form 
md  the  courses  they  pursue  in  this  life  cannot  be  other- 
wise than  influential  and  salutary.  }But  the  future  is 
dark  without  a revelation  from  God,  and  hence  the  ne- 
cessity of  a revelation,  j 

4.  Without  a revelation  there  is  not  an  intimation  of  a way 
of  salvation  for  sinners . I have  referred  to  the  fact  that  a 
correct  standard  of  right  is  impossible  unless  there  is  a 
divine  communication  on  the  subject.  Light  is  needed 
from  heaven.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that 
heathen  nations  have  their  imperfect  standards  -of  right 
and  wrong,  and  that  they  universally  fail  to  come  up  to 
these  standards.  They  are  therefore  self-condemned. 
Conscience  pronounces  its  censure  and  stings  with  its 
accusations.  In  accordance  with  this  view,  Paul  says: 
“ For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by 
nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these,  having 
not  the  law,  are  a law  unto  themselves:  which  show  the 
work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience 
also  bearing  witaess,  and  their  thoughts  the  mean  while 
1 No yes’ a translation. 


30 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES 


accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another.”  Rom.  ii.  14,  15. 
The  excusing  or  approving  operation  of  conscience  is 
dependent  on  conformity  to  the  recognized  standard  of 
right,  while  a departure  from  that  standard  is  followed  b) 
self-accusation.  That  the  departure  and  the  self-accusa- 
tion are  universal  among  the  heathen  is  evident  from  the 
universality  of  sacrifices.  Offerings  are  made  to  propitiate 
their  gods,  and  in  these  offerings  there  is  a recognition  of 
sin  and  of  the  necessity  of  appeasing  the  wrath  of  these 
gods  “ which  are  yet  no  gods.”  I think  it  may  be  said 
that  the  benighted  heathen  labor  under  the  consciousness 
that  some  moral  disaster  has  come  upon  them,  that  some 
wreck  has  befallen  their  moral  nature.  They  are  aware 
that  their  moral  constitution  is  infected  by  disease,  but 
they  know  not  of  a remedy.  They  grope  in  darkness. 
That  we  may,  as  far  as  it  is  possible,  place  ourselves  in 
their  condition,  let  us  shut  out  all  the  light  we  have  re- 
ceived from  the  gospel  on  the  subject  of  salvation.  Then 
what  could  we  learn  from  the  light  of  Nature?  There 
are  many  things  recorded  in  the  volume  of  Nature,  but 
there  is  nothing  concerning  the  salvation  of  a sinner.  In 
the  wide  realm  of  Nature  no  discoveries  can  be  made 
touching  this  infinitely  important  matter.  No  word 
comes  from  the  abysses  of  the  deep;  for  “The  depth  saith, 
It  is  not  in  me:  and  the  sea  saith,  It  is  not  with  me.”  No 
price  paid  for  a knowledge  of  salvation  can  procure  it; 
for  “It  cannot  be  gotten  for  gold,  neither  shall  silver  be 
weighed  for  the  price  thereof.”  Not  a syllable  is  heard 
from  the  blue  heavens  above  us  nor  from  the  green  earth 
beneath  us.  The  whistling  winds  say  nothing,  the  rolling 
thunders  utter  nothing,  the  fiery  lightnings  disclose 
nothing.  All  Nature  is,  as  to  the  salvation  of  sinners, 
as  silent  as  the  grave. 

Nor  can  human  reason,  in  i s amplest  researches,  find 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  GOD . 31 


a way  in  which  a sinner  can  be  saved.  We  have  seen 
that  the  moral  character  of  God  cannot  be  known  by  the 
discoveries  of  reason,  but  his  moral  character  is  specially 
concerned  in  saving  sinners.  As  moral  Governor  of  the 
world  he  must  exercise  pardoning  mercy  if  it  is  exercised 
at  all,  but  reason  cannot  tell  whether  there  is  mercy  in 
God.  The  truths  involved  in  the  salvation  of  a sinner 
are  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  reason.  The  science  of 
redemption  is  a supernatural  science.  Without  the  light 
of  a divine  revelation  it  defies  comprehension.  We  must 
not  forget  that  salvation  is  a subject  of  infinite  moment. 
It  is  invested  with  an  importance  which  language  was  not 
invented  to  describe.  This  we  see  in  listening  to  such 
questions  as  these:  Shall  I be  saved  or  lost?  Shall  I go 
to  heaven  or  hell?  Shall  I spend  eternal  ages  in  the 
beatific  presence  of  God  or  in  hopeless  exile  from  him  ? 
These  questions  will  appear  far  more  important  ten  thou- 
, sand  centuries  hence  than  they  do  now.  If  salvation 
thus  affects  and  involves  man’s  supreme  interests — inter- 
ests which  overleap  the  horizon  of  time  and  measure 
years  with  eternity — and  if  there  is  no  intimation  of  a 
way  of  salvation  for  sinners  without  a revelation  from 
God,  the  necessity  of  a revelation  is  incontrovertible. 

having  attempted  to  show  the  necessity  of  a divine 
revelation,  I shall  now  endeavor  to  show  that  the  Bible 
contains  such  a revelation.  The  two  things  are  distinct. 
What  reasons  justify  the  belief  that  the  Bible  is  the  word 
of  God,  a revelation  from  heaven?  In  answer  to  this 
question  the  following  things  may  be  said: 

4-i.  The  human  intellect  could  not  produce  such  a hook  as  the 
Bible . It  is  cheerfully  conceded  that  the  capacity  of 
man’s  intellect  is  great.  The  extent  to  which  the  mind 
may  be  strengthened  and  expanded  is  an  unsettled  ques- 
tion. It  is  unsettled,  because  no  man  can  say  to  the 


32 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


mind  in  its  high  career  of  improvement,  “ Hitherto 
shalt  thou  come,  but  no  farther.  \ It  is  equally  foolish 
and  false  to  deny  that  the  capabilities  of  the  human 
intellect  are  wonderful.  But  these  capabilities  can  be 
exercised  only  in  their  proper  spheres.  There  are  doc- 
trines taught  in  the  Bible  of  which  the  unaided  intellect 
of  man  could  have  formed  no  conception.  We  may  take, 
for  example,  what  the  Scriptures  say  of  God’s  omni- 
presence. They  teach  that  he  is  everywhere — not  that  he 
is  in  different  places  at  different  times,  but  that  he  is  in 
all  places  at  all  times.  They  teach  that  he  has  control  of 
matter  and  of  spirit,  and  that  he  is  present  with  both  . 
that  his  presence  displaces  neither  matter  nor  sjjirit;  and 
that  there  is  in  the  vast  realms  of  space  no  spot  from 
which  he  is  absent.  He  himself  asks,  “Am  I a God  at 
hand,  saith  the  Lord,  and  not  a God  afar  off?  Can  any 
hide  himself  in  secret  places  that  I shall  not  see  him? 
saith  the  Lord.  Do  not  I fill  heaven  and  earth?  saith 
the  Lord.”  Jer.  xxiii.  23,  24.  David,  solemnly  impressed 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  omnipresence,  exclaimed, 
“Whither  shall  I go  from  thy  Spirit?  or  whither  shall  I 
flee  from  thy  presence?  If  I ascend  up  into  heaven, 
thou  art  there:  if  I make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold,  thou 
art  there.  If  I take  the  wings  of  the  morning,  and  dwell 
in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea,  even  there  shall  thy 
hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me.”  Ps. 
cxxxix.  7-10. 

Were  not  these  grand  ideas  divinely  communicated  to 
David?  Was  it  possible  for  his  unaided  intellect  to  origi- 
nate a conception  of  them?  Now  that  they  are  revealed, 
the  mind  can  comprehend  them  only  in  part,  and  surely 
they  did  not  have  a -human  origin. 

Again:  What  the  Bible  says  of  redemption  ty  Christ 
is  obviously  above  the  invention  of  the  human  intellect. 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  GOB.  33 


We  are  told  that  “ God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave 
his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.”  “ When  the 
fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son, 
made  of  a woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them 
that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adop- 
tion of  sons.”  u But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a little 
lower  than  the  angels  for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned 
with  glory  and  honor,  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should 
taste  death  for  every  man.  For  it  became  him,  for  whom 
are  all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing 
many  sons  to  glory,  to  make  the  Captain  of  their  salva- 
tion perfect  through  sufferings.”  John  iii.  16;  Gal.  iv. 
4,5;  Heb.  ii.  9,  10. 

Can  any  man  read  these  passages  and  say  that  they 
are  the  production  of  the  human  intellect?  Could  the 
thought  have  originated  in  the  mind  of  man  that  God 
loved  this  perishing  world  to  such  an  extent  as  to  give  his 
Son  to  become  incarnate  and  suffer  death,  even  the  death 
of  the  cross  ? Could  man  or  angel  have  imagined  that  it 
“ became  God,”  that  it  was  worthy  of  him,  to  bring  many 
sons  to  glory  under  the  leadership  of  a Captain  of  salva- 
tion fitted  for  his  position  by  means  of  sufferings?  That 
the  guilty  creature  should  be  saved  at  the  expense  of  the 
incarnation  of  the  Creator ; that  life  should  come  to  the 
sons  of  men  through  the  death  of  the  Son  of  God  ; that 
heaven  should  become  accessible  to  earth’s  distant  popu- 
lation by  the  blood  of  a shameful  cross, — was  utterly  re- 
mote from  all  finite  conception.  Even  when  the  won- 
der was  made  known  by  the  gospel,  it  excited  the  con- 
tempt of  Jews  and  Greeks,  To  the  former  it  was  a 
stumbling-block,  an  offence ; to  the  latter  it  was  foolish- 
ness. The  Greeks  were  a highly  cultivated  people,  acute  in 
intellect,  profound  in  philosophy,  and  subtle  in  reason- 


34 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


ing,  but  they  ridiculed  the  idea  of  salvation  through  one 
who  was  crucified.  They  may  well  be  regarded  as  repre- 
senting the  possibilities  of  the  human  intellect — what  it 
can  do ; and,  so  far  from  claiming  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  redemption  as  an  invention  of  philosophers,  they 
laughed  at  it  as  unworthy  of  philosophy.  The  facts 
of  the  gospel  they  rejected  as  incredible,  because  they 
seemed  to  be  in  positive  conflict  with  their  conceptions 
of  reason.  The  point  of  the  argument  is,  that  as  intel- 
lect, which  was  developed  so  favorably  among  the  Greeks, 
did  not  recognize  the  doctrine  of  redemption  through 
Christ  as  in  harmony  with  their  philosophy,  we  must 
conclude  that  the  doctrine  is  above  the  invention  of  the 
human  intellect. 

2.  Marts  heart  would  not  prompt  him  to  make  such  a book 
as  the  Bible . He  has  a heart  as  well  as  an  intellect,  and 
even  if  he  were  mentally  capable  of  making  such  a vol- 
ume, he  is  morally  incompetent.  This  will  appear  if  we 
consider  the  universal  depravity  of  the  human  race. 
Whether  men  accept  or  reject  the  Bible  view  of  the 
origin,  the  transmission,  and  the  history  of  sin,  they 
are  compelled  to  admit  that  man’s  moral  nature  rests 
under  the  blight  of  some  disaster.  It  exhibits  imper- 
fection and  perversity  from  infancy  to  old  age,  and  this 
it  has  done  as  far  back  as  the  records  of  history  give  us 
information.  The  power  of  human  depravity  does  not 
exhaust  itself  by  lapse  of  time  and  the  succession  of 
generations,  but  continues  in  undiminished  strength  from 
century  to  century.  All  the  annals  of  the  world’s  history 
bear  testimony  to  this  truth.  The  moral  depravity  of  man 
shows  itself  in  some  diversity  of  manifestation,  as  we  see  in 
savage  and  in  civilized  lands,  under  different  forms  of  gov- 
ernment, but  it  is  substantially  the  same  in  all  climes  and 
in  all  ages.  It  may  surely  be  assumed  as  true  that  univer- 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  G01) . 35 


sal  man  is  the  subject  of  moral  depravity,  that  his  heart  is 
not  right  with  God,  that  he^loves^sm^ and  that  his  tend- 
encies are  in  the  direction  of  evil.  This  being  the  case, 
bow  is  it  possible  to  believe  the  Bible  a human  produc- 
tion ? It  commends  everything  that  is  right  and  con- 
demns everything  that  is  wrong.  It  puts  the  seal  of  its 
approval  on  all  that  is  good,  and  pronounces  its  censure 
on  all  that  is  evil.  It  inculcates  supreme  love  to  God,  * 
and  universal  love  to  men  as  the  creatures  of  God.  It 
declares  all  human  works  to  be  without  merit,  and  pre- 
sents salvation  as  the  gift  of  God’s  sovereign  grace.  It 
crucifies  the  pride  of  man,  placing  him  in  the  dust;  it 
exalts  the  Lord  of  glory,  placing  him  on  the  throne. 

Now  the  questions  arise,  Would  man  with  his  depraved 
heart  be  inclined  to  make  such  a book  as  the  Bible? 
Would  he  produce  a volume  in  condemnation  of  him- 
self? Would  he,  though  by  nature  under  the  influence 
of  a self-justifying  disposition,  declare  his  righteousness 
to  be  “as  filthy  rags”?  Would  his  natural  self-love 
operate  so  strangely  ? Would  he  become  the  patron  of 
every  virtue  and  the  censor  of  every  vice?  Would  he 
urge  holiness  of  heart  and  life  by  the  glories  of  an  eter- 
nal heaven  and  the  miseries  of  an  eternal  hell?  If  so,  it 
would  be  equivalent  to  the  emanation  of  a sweet  stream 
from  a bitter  fountain.  In  the  one  case,  there  would  be  a 
violation  of  a fixed  analogy  of  Nature;  in  the  other,  one 
of  the  established  analogies  of  the  moral  world  would  be 
nullified.  It  cannot  be.  The  Bible  is  not  a human  pro- 
duction. Man’s  heart  would  not  let  him  make  such  a 
book  even  if  he  had  the  intellectual  ability.  The  latter, 
however,  he  does  not  possess.  The  argument  in  favor  of 
the  Bible  as  a divine  revelation,  as  now  presented,  is  in 
substance  this : Man  could  not  make  such  a book  if  he 
would,  and  would  not  if  he  could.  The  former  is  pre* 


36 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


eluded  by  the  condition  of  his  intellect,  the  latter  by  the 
state  of  his  heart.  If,  then,  the  Bible  is  not  a human  pro- 
duction, it  follows  that  it  is  the  book  of  God.  There  is  no 
middle  ground.  fThe  Bible  tells  us  what  no  being  in  the 
universe  but  God  xnew,  and  therefore  it  contains  a revela- 
tion from  him.  I may  thus  illustrate  my  view : A hus- 
band, being  absent  from  home,  receives  a letter  purporting 
(o  be  from  his  wife.  Some  one,  we  will  suppose,  tries  to 
convince  him  that  the  letter  is  not  genuine,  that  the  hand- 
writing of  the  wife  has  been  counterfeited.  The  husband 
knowing  the  expertness  of  counterfeiters,  admits  that  some- 
body may  have  learned  to  form  letters  and  to  wTrite  words 
precisely  as  does  his  wTife;  but  he  says,  “ This  letter  is  from 
iny  wife,  because  it  tells  me  what  no  one  except  herself 
knows.”  Here  he  rests  unmoved,  feeling  that  he  has  the 
most  solid  foundation  for  his  belief.  Our  faith  in  the 
Bible  as  a divine  revelation  may  well  and  safely  repose  on 
the  fact  that  it  tells  us  what  God  alone  knows\  It  is  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  for  the  men  who  wrote  it  ^spake  as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.”  2 Pet.  i.  21. 

3.  The  person  and  character  of  Christ  as  revealed  in  the 
Bible  prove  the  divine  origin  of  the  book.  As  to  the  person 
of  Christ,  it  is  unique — it  stands  alone — there  is  nothing 
like  it  in  the  universe.  The  constitution  of  his  person  5s 
the  Christ  results  from  the  mysterious  union  in  him  of 
two  natures,  the  divine  and  the  human.  As  the  Word, 
who  “in  the  beginning  wras  with  God  and  wTas  Gcd,”  he 
was  not  the  Christ.  As  man,  possessing  a human  body 
and  a human  soul,  he  was  not  the  Christ.  But  as  the 
“Word  made  flesh,”  taking  human  nature  into  alliance 
with  supreme  Divinity,  he  became  the  Christ,  the  Anoint- 
ed One.  As  the  Christ,  he  lived  on  the  earth,  suffered  in 
Gethsemane,  died  on  Calvary,  was  buried,  rose  again,  as- 
cended to  heaven,  and  there  lives  immortal  His  person 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  GOD.  37 


will  undergo  no  change  through  all  the  boundless  future. 
He  will  ever  be  the  God-man,  for  the  union  of  the  two 
natures  constituting  him  the  Christ  is  indissoluble. 
Strange  as  it  is,  humanity  is  exalted  and  enthroned  in 
the  heavens.  Such  honor  has  never  been  conferred  on 
the  angelic  nature.  The  person  of  Christ  wTill  be.  the 
wonder  of  wonders  through  all  eternity.  Who  can  be- 
lieve that  the  thought  of  such  a person  as  the  Scriptures 
represent  Christ  to  be  could  have  entered  into  the  mind 
of  man,  except  by  divine  revelation?  The  origin  of  such 
a thought  in  the  unaided  human  intellect  would  have 
oeen  about  as  impossible  as  the  creation  of  a world  by 
. human  power. 

The  character  of  Christ  is  to  be  considered  as  well  as 
his  person.  It  wa_s_a  perfect  character.  Nothing  like  it 
? had  been  seen  on  earthTOmperfection  cleaves  to  the  best 
of  men,  and  even  in  the^strongest  points  of  character 
weakness  sometimes  exhibits  itself.  ^ For  example,  Abra- 
ham, remarkable  for  his  faith,  seems  on  some  occasions 
not  to  have  trusted  in  God  fully;  Moses,  distinguished 
for  his  meekness,  wras  not  invariably  meek;  Job,  pro- 
verbial for  his  patience,  wras  not  always  patient ; Peter, 
bold  and  impetuous,  occasionally  acted  the  coward ; and 
Paul,  most  loyal  of  men  to  principle  and  truth,  did  a few 
things  that  are  scarcely  defensible.  But  the  character  of 
Christ  was  absolutely  faultless  and  spotless.  His  friends, 
who  for  years  were  on  intimate  terms  with  him,  wTho  saw 
him  in  public  places,  in  the  social  circle,  and  in  the  pri- 
vacy of  life,  do  not  attribute  to  him  a solitary  imperfec- 
tion. Their  opinion  of  him  obviously  was  that  his  cha- 
racter wrould  bear  the  most  scrutinizing  inspection.  Of 
Christ’s  twelve  disciples,  there  were  three,  Peter,  James, 
and  John,  who  on  several  occasions  were  admitted  to  the 
intimacy  of  special  friendship.  The  testimony  of  two  of 

4 


38 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


the  three  has  been  handed  down  to  us.  Peter  refers  to 
his  Lord  as  a “ Lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot,’5 
1 who  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth ;* 
and  John  uses  this  language:  “ And  ye  know  that  he  was 
manifested  to  take  away  our  sins;  and  in  him  is  no  sin.” 
The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says  of  him 
that  he  “ is  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  separate  from  sin- 
ners.” Nor  can  we  attribute  this  immaculate  perfection 
to  the  absence  of  temptation.  Good  men  have  often 
yielded  to  temptation,  falling  before  its  power,  but  Jesus, 
though  “ tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are,”  resisted  and 
triumphed.  “ Without  sin  ” are  the  significant  words  used 
in  connection  with  his  temptations — “ tempted  in  all  points  - 
like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin.”  Heb.  iv.  15.  The  tempter 
no  doubt  employed  all  his  ingenuity  in  presenting  induce- 
ments to  lead  him  to  sin,  but  failed  in  every  instance. 
Jesus  himself  said,  “The  prince  of  this  world  cometh, 
and  hath  nothing  in  me.”  John  xiv.  30.  That  is,  the 
purity  of  his  character  was  so  perfect  that  there  was  in 
him  absolutely  nothing  responsive  to  the  suggestions  of 
Satan.  The  temptations  which  Christ  resisted  proved 
his  moral  rectitude,  and  were  the  means  of  displaying 
his  glory,  even  as  the  dark  clouds  from  which  the  sun 
emerges  cause  his  welcome  face  to  appear  more  bright. 

If  the  person  and  character  of  Christ  are  what  the  Bible 
declares  them  to  be,  then  the  Bible  contains  a revelation 
from  heavenX  The  argument  is,  that  the  unassisted  intel- 
lect of  man  could  not  have  conceived  of  such  a person 
and  such  a character,  and  therefore  the  portraiture  of  the 
person  and  character  of  Christ  must  be  divine.  If  any 
man  takes  the  opposite  view  and  insists  that  the  human 
intellect,  without  light  and  aid  from  heaven,  could:  invent 
such  a person  and  character,  let  him  accept  what  follows; 
and  this  plainly  follows:  If  the  New  Testament  writers 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  GOB.  39 


did,  of  themselves  and  without  divine  inspiration,  con- 
ceive and  present  the  person  and  character  of  Christ, 
they  performed  a greater  miracle  than  any  recorded  in 
the  Bible.  He  who  assumes  so  unreasonable  a position 
can  never  make  a plausible  objection  to  the  most  as- 
tounding miracles.  It  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge  on 
this  point. 

I The  person  and  character  of  Christ,  as  revealed  in  the 
New  Testament,  prove  the  Bible  to  be  of  superhuman 
origin.  If  there  were  no  other  sources  of  proof,  this 
would  be  sufficient.  \ There  is  no  rational  way  of  ac- 
counting for  what  the  Scriptures  say  of  Christ,  unless 
they  are  divinely  inspired.  While  I have  referred  to  the 
New  Testament  as  specially  revealing  the  person  and  cha- 
racter of  Christ,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Old  Testament  is  as  undeniable  as  that  of. 
the  New.  The  New  Testament  everywhere  recognizes  the 
Old  Testament  as  the  word  of  God.  How  often  did  Jesus 
in  referring  to  the  ancient  Scriptures  say,  “ It  is  written,”  . 
“How  readest  thou?”  “As  the  Scripture  hath  said”! 
The  Old  Testament  and  the  Now  are  both  parts  of  the 
same  revelation  of  God  to  man.  The  Old  anticipates  the 
New,  and  the  New  presupposes  the  Old.  Neither  is  com- 
plete without  the  other,  but  the  two  constitute  God's  book 
given  to  man,  There  is  no  other  revelation ; there  is  no 
intimation  that  there  will  be  another  while  the  world 
stands. 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  go  into  the  question  of  “ degrees 
of  inspiration.”  Nothing  is  said  about  lowrer  or  higher 
degrees  in  the  Bible  itself.  Inspiration  is  a mystery. 
How  God  inspired  men  to  speak  and  write  his  truth, 
“not  in  the  words  which  man’s  wisdom  teacheth,  but 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth,”  and  at  the  same  time 
did  not  interfere  with  individuality  of  style,  but  left  it 


40 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


undisturbed,  we  do  not  know.  We  do  know,  however, 
that  the  style  of  Moses  is  not  that  of  David,  nor  is  the 
style  of  Isaiah  like  that  of  Jeremiah,  nor  the  style  of 
Matthew  similar  to  that  of  John;  and  the  style  of  Paul 
is  plainly  different  from  that  of  Peter.  This  diversity  of 
style  seems  to  us  to  result  from  individuality  of  character 
each  writer  using  such  words  as  he  was  acquainted  with 
and  accustomed  to  use ; yet  they  were  God’s  words  as  cer- 
tainly as  if  the  inspired  men  had  known  nothing  of  them. 
Hence  we  read  again  and  again,  “ Thus  saith  the  Lord,” 
and  “The  Lord  spoke,  saying.”  While  revelation  and 
inspiration  are  not  precisely  equivalent,  the  terms  are 
often  used  convertibly.  Thus  we  say  “ the  volume  of  reve- 
lation” and  “ the  volume  of  inspiration,”  meaning  the  same 
thing.  Possibly  a strict  use  of  terms  would  require  us  to 
confine  the  word  revelation  tofthose  things  in  the  Bible 
which  were  not  known,  and  could  not  be  known,  till  God 
revealed  them,^vhile  inspiration  has  to  do  with  the  whole 
Bible.  For  example,  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  flesh  to 
save  sinners  was  a matter  of  revelation;  but  that  there 
were  Pharisees  and  Sadclucees  at  Jerusalem,  and  that  the 
river  Jordan  ran  through  Judea,  are  unquestionable  facts, 
though  not  supernaturally  revealed.  Still,  all  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  concerning  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and 
the  river  Jordan  was  written  under  the  inspiration  of 
God.  That  is  to  say,  God  by  his  Spirit  influenced  the 
sacred  penmen  to  write  just  what  they  did  write,  no 
more,  no  less ; so  that  the  Bible  is  as  much  the  book 
of  God  as  if  Tie,  without  the  intervention  of  men  had 
written  it  himself. 

I have  thought  proper  to  say  as  much  as  this  concern- 
ing inspiration,  as  there  will  be  no  chapter  of  this  work 
specially  devoted  to  the  subject.  Indeed,  such  a chap- 
ter will  hardly  be  necessary,  for  if  the  Bible  is,  as  I 


THE  BIBLE  A REVELATION  FROM  GOD.  41  « 

have  attempted  to  show,  a revelation  from  God,  its  in- 
spiration must  be  granted.  Nor  shall  I dwell  on  what 
are  called  the  external  evidences  of  the  truth  of  the 
Bible,  such  as  miracles,  prophecy,  etc.  The  limit's  I have 
prescribed  for  myself  will  not  permit;  and,  moreover,  1 
have  preferred  to  present  some  of  the  internal  evidences 
of  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures.  Of  these  I have  selected 
only  a few,  but  if  the  trains  of  thought  which  they  sug- 
gest are  carried  out,  we  shall  see  that  in  accepting  the 
Bible  as  true  “we  have  not  followed  cunningly-devised 
fables.”  2 Pet.  i.  16. 

If  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  its  authority  cannot  be 
questioned.  There  must  be  no  cavilings  as  to  its  teach- 
ings. What  it  says  must  be  received  as  true,  and  its 
words  must  be  candidly  and  faithfully  interpreted.  There 
must  be  docility  of  spirit — a willingness  to  “ be  taught  of 
God,”  which  will  express  itself  in  the  language  of  the 
child  Samuel:  “ Speak,  Lord,  for  thy  servant  heareth.” 

1 Sam.  iii.  9. 

Recognizing  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  I shall 
appeal  to  it  in  every  part  of  this  volume  as  the  stand- 
ard of  truth  and  right. 

4* 


» 


CHAPTER  [II. 

THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD 

The  term  attribute , in  its  application  t)  persons  oi 
things,  means  something  belonging  to  persons  or  things. 
The  attributes  of  a thing  are  so  essential  to  it  that  with- 
out them  it  could  not  be  what  it  is ; and  this  is  equally 
true  of  the  attributes  of  a person.  If  a man  were 
divested  of  the  "attributes  belonging  to  him,  he  would 
cease  to  be  a man,  for  these  attributes  are  inherent  in 
that  which  constitutes  him  a human  being.  If  we  trans- 
fer these  ideas  to  God,  we  shall  find  that  his  attributes 
belong  inalienably  to  him,  and,  therefore,  what  he  is 
now  he  must  ever  be.  His  attributes  are  his  perfections, 
inseparable  from  his  nature  and  constituting  his  character. 
There  have  been  many  attempts  made  by  theologians  to 
arrange  the  attributes  of  God  in  classes.  They  have  been 
styled  natural  and  moral  -attributes, (communicable  and 
incommunicable^,  positive  and  negative*  absolute  aqd 
relative.  To  all  these  divisions  and  epithets  of  designa- 
tion objections  can  no  doubt  be  made.  Possibly  the 
classification  of  natural  and  moral  attributes  in  God  is 
as  good  as  any.  These  have  been  defined  thus: 

“ The  ^natural  are  all  those  which  pertain  to  his  exist- 
ence as  an  infinite,  rational  Spirit.  . . . The  moral  are 
those  additional  attributes  which  belong  to  him  as  an 
infinite,  righteous  Spirit.”1  In  the  light  of  this  defini- 
1 Ilodge’s  Outlines  of  Theology , p.  104. 


42 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


43 


* tion  I will  refer  to  some  of  the  more  prominent  of  the 
attributes  of  God. 

I.  His  Natural  Attributes. 

1.  Self-existence.  This,  of  course,  means  that  the  causes 
of  his  existence  are  in  himself.  Jesus  teaches  this  doc- 
trine where  he  says  that  “the  Father  hath  life  in  himself.” 
John  v.  26.  The  life  is  inherent.  Unlike  the  life  of 
creatures,  it  comes  from  no  external  source.  If  there 
were  no  creatures  in  the  universe,  their  non-existence 
would  not  in  the  least  affect  the  existence  of  God.  It 
did  not  affect  his  existence  before  he  performed  the  work 
of  creation.  He  had  “life  in  himself”  when  there  was 
life  nowhere  else.  In  the  total  absence  of  life  outside  of 
himself  all  the  possibilities  of  life  were  in  himself.  We 
are  never  to  forget  that  in  him  creatures  “live  and  move 
and  have  their  being  ” — are  dependent  on  him  for  life, 
motion,  and  existence ; but  his  self-existence  makes  him 
absolutely  independent.  The  causes  of  their  existence 
not  being  in  themselves,  creatures  are  of  necessity  de- 
pendent on  the  Creator,  to  whose  will  the  reasons  of  their 
existence  are  traceable.  The  reasons  of  God’s  existence 
are  in  himself  alone,  and  his  self-existence  is  an  inalien- 
able attribute  of  his  nature.  When  he  interposes  his 
oath  to  confirm  his  word  he  swears  by  himself,  saying, 
“As  I live,”  leaving  his  oath  to  rest  on  the  immutable 
basis  of  his  self-existence.  In  the  boundless  range  of 
human  and  angelic  thought  there  will  never  be  found  a 
deeper  mystery  than  the  self-existence  of  God.  It  defies 
finite  comprehension.  God  alone  knows  how  he  exists, 
why  he  exists,  why  he  has  always  existed,  and  why  he 
will  exist  for  ever.  “Great  is  the  Lord,  and  greatly 
to  be  praised ; and  his  greatness  is  unsearchable.”  Fs 
cxlv.  3. 


44 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


2.  Hepuiv.  The  attribute  of  self-existence  suggests 
that  of  eternity,  or  it  may  be  said  that  the  two  attributes 
are  suggestive  of  eaoh  other.  For  if  the  causes  of  God’s 
existence  are  in  himself,  reason  will  admit  that  those 
causes  have  been  in  operation  from  eternity ; and  if  he 
is  an  eternal  Being,  then  he  must  be  self-existent.  As  to 
the  eternity  of  God,  the  Scriptures  are  plain.  We  read 
as  fellows : “ And  Abraham  planted  a grove  in  Beersheba, 
and  called  there  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  the  everlasting 
God.”  Gen.  xxi.  33.  “The  eternal  God  is  thy  refuge,  and 
underneath  are  the  everlasting  arms.”  Deut.  xxxiii.  27. 
“ Before  the  mountains  were  brought  forth,  or  ever  thou 
hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the  world,  even  from  ever- 
lasting to  everlasting,  thou  art  God.”  Ps.  xc.  2.  “ Now 

unto  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the  only  wise 
God,  be  honor  and  glory  for  ever  and  ever.”  1 Tim.  i.  17. 
“ And  they  rest  not  day  and  night,  saying,  Holy,  holy, 
holy,  Lord  God  Almighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to 
come.”  Rev.  iv.  8. 

These  passages  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  God  of 
the  Bible  is  he  who  “ inhabits  eternity.”  He  “ was,”  and 
this  includes  all  the  past;  he  “is,”  and  this  includes  the 
present;  he  “is  to  come,”  and  this  includes  all  the  future. 
I may  avail  myself  of  the  eloquent  words  of  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  of  American  scholars.1  Referring  to 
God,  he  says:  “ His  existence  in  space  is  an  infinite  here; 
his  existence  in  duration  is  an  infinite  noiv.  The  waves 
of  two  eternities  break  upon  his  throne,  and  it  rests 
unmoved  above  the  flood.”  We  are  reminded  by  the 
words,  “an  infinite  now,”  of  the  language  of  Peter:  “But, 
beloved,  be  not  ignorant  of  this  one  thing,  that  one  day  is 
with  the  Lord  as  a thousand  years,  and  a thousand  years 
as  one  day.”  2 Pet.  iii.  8.  The  finite  mind  is  impressed 
1 Prof.  A . C.  Kendrick,  D.  D.,  of  Rochester  University 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD . 


45 


with  the  difference  between  a day  and  a week,  bat  to  the 
Infinite  Mind  the  distinction  between  a day  and  a thou- 
sand years  is  obliterated.  Points  of  time  as  far  apart  as 
the  creation  of  the  world  and  the  last  judgment  are 
surveyed  with  the  same  glance,  while  intermediate  cen- 
turies pass  “ as  a watch  in  the  night.”  This  is  the  case, 
because  God’s  “ existence  in  duration  is  an  infinite  now.” 
The  God  of  the  Bible  is  the  only  Being  who  is  absolutely 
eternal,  his  existence  having  neither  beginning  nor  end. 
In  this  sense  eternity  is  an  attribute  peculiarly  his  own, 
and  on  the  throne  which  is  “ for  ever  and  ever  ” he  must 
ever  sit  in  majestic  isolation.  There  is  no  being  like 
Jehovah. 

3.  Unitu . The  application  of  this  term  to  God  is  de- 
signed to  teach  that  there  is  one,  and  but  one,  God.  The 
doctrine  of  God’s  unity  is  involved  in  his  self-existence 
and  in  the  eternity  of  his  being.  It  is  evident  that  there 
is  need  of  only  one  self-existent  being  in  the  universe,  for 
self-sufficiency  is  allied  to  self-existence.  That  is  to  say, 
a self-existent  being  must  be  a self-sufficient  being,  able 
to  do  whatever  needs  to  be  done  and  whatever  he  chooses 
to  do.  One  self-existent  being  for  ever  supersedes  the  ne- 
cessity of  another ; and  not  only  so,  but  renders  the  ex- 
istence of  another  impossible.  There  cannot  be  two  self- 
existent  beings,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  self-exist- 
ence implies  the  possession  of  all  perfections.  If,  then, 
there  could  be  two  such  beings,  they  would  each  possess 
all  perfections,  and  would  therefore  be  essentially  one  and 
the  same.  They  would  fill  one  and  the  same  sphere — a 
thing  impossible  if  they  were  two,  and  not  one.  The  ex- 
istence of  more  than  one  God  comes  not  within  the 
limits  of  possibility.  The  attribute  of  self-existence  es- 
tablisnes  this  position,  and  the  attribute  of  eternity  for- 
tifies it.  For  if  one  God  has  existed  from  eternity,  there 


46 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


has  been  no  place  for  another.  The  eternity  of  God  is  a 
conclusive  proof  of  his  unity.  As  illustrative  of  the  di- 
vine unity  I might  refer  to  the  system  of  Nature  as  indi- 
visible, bearing  the  impress  of  one  Almighty  Agent  in  all 
its  wide  realm,  from  the  revelations  of  the  telescope  to  the 
wonders  of  the  microscope,  with  all  intervening  displays 
of  oneness  of  design.  But  it  is  time  to  ask,  What  do  the 
Scriptures  say?  Let  the  earth  listen:  “ Hear,  0 Israel: 
The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord.”  l)eut.  vi.  4.  “For  thou 
art  great,  and  doest  wondrous  things : thou  art  God  alone.” 
Ps.  Ixxxvi.  10.  “ Is  there  a God  besides  me?  Yea, 

there  is  no  God  ; I know  not  any.”  “ Look  unto  me,  and 
be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth : for  I am  God,  and 
there  is  none  else.”  Isa.  xliv.  8 ; xlv.  22.  “The  Lord  our 
God  is  one  Lord.”  Mark  xii.  29.  “ And  this  is  life  eter- 

nal, that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent.”  John  xvii.  3.  “For 
there  is  one  God.”  1 Tim.  ii.  5.  “ Thou  believest  that 

there  is  one  God ; thou  doest  well.”  James  ii.  19.  These 
passages  abundantly  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Hi  vine 
unity,  and  the  one  God  claims  for  himself  exclusive 
worship  and  service. 

4.  Immutability.  Creatures  change,  everything  earthly 
changes!,  but  God  changes  not.  He  is  and  must  be  eter- 
nally the  same,  for  he  is  infinitely  perfect,  and  infinite 
perfection  precludes  change.  There  can  be  no  change 
which  does  not  imply  imperfection.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  imperfection  is  implied  in  a change  for  the  worse, 
for  such  a change  would  indicate  imperfection  before,  and 
greater  imperfection  after,  its  occurrence.  It  is  also  true 
that  a change  for  the  better  denotes  previous  imperfec- 
tion, for  such  a change  is  toward  perfection.  Nowr,  God, 
whether  we  consider  him  as  possessing  natural  or  moral 
attributes,  is  absolutely  perfect.  There  can  be  no  addi- 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


47 


tion  to  the  number  of  his  natural  attributes,  and  there 
can  be  no  increase  of  their  capacity  and  power.  There 
can  be  no  change  in  these  respects.  It  would  be  absurd 
to  suppose  that  God  can  be  more  self-existent?.  more  eternal, 
v wre  omnipotent  than  he  is.  It  is  equally  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  his  natural  attributes  can  be  alienated  from 
him,  or  that  he  can  lose  them  in  any  way.  He  must 
retain  them  and  as  his  attributes  are  immutable,  he 
changes  not. 

As  to  the  moral  attributes  of  the  divine  character,  they 
also  are  unchangeable.  They  bear  the  stamp  of  perfec- 
tion. If  God,  however,  could  change  in  his  moral  attri- 
butes, it  would  imply  imperfection  in  his  moral  character. 
If,  for  example,  he  could  become  a better  being  than  ho 
is,  it  would  imply  that  he  is  not  perfect  in  goodness.  If 
he  could  be  more  just,  then  justice  has  not  reached  it? 
climax  in  him.  If  he  could  be  more  faithful  to  his  word 
his  veracity  is  not  perfect.  If  he  could  be  more  holy,  it 
follows  that  he  is  not  infinitely  holy  now.  I present 
these  suppositions,  and  the  consequences  resulting  from 
them  if  true,  to  show  that  they  cannot  possibly  be  true. 
God  in  his  moral  as  well  as  in  his  natural  attributes  is 
immutable,  and  therefore  his  character  is  unchangeable. 
This  conclusion  is  sustained  by  the  following  Scriptures : 
“But  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  have  no  end.” 
Ps.  cii.  27.  “ For  I am  the  Lord,  I change  not ; therefore 

ye  sons  of  Jacob  are  not  consumed.”  Mai.  iii.  6.  “ Every 

good  gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above,  and  cometli 
down  from  the  Father  of  Lights,  with  whom  is  no  varia- 
bleness, neither  shadow  of  turning.”  James  i.  17. 

The  doctrine  of  God’s  immutability  is  replete  with  joy 
to  his  people.  They  see  indications  of  change  in  every- 
thing around  them.  They  are  constantly  in  the  midst  of 
changing  scenes ; their  spiritual  emotions  change ; soon  the 


48 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


mode  of  their  existence  will  change — for  their  spirits  will 
go  forth  and  leave  their  bodies  to  fall  into  the  grave — but 
the  God  of  their  salvation  is  unchangeable  in  his  purposes 
of  love,  and  says  to  each  one  of  his  children,  “ The  moun- 
tains shall  depart,  and  the  hills  be  removed:  but  my  kind- 
ness shall  not  depart  from  thee,  neither  shall  the  covenant 
of  my  peace  be  removed,  saith  the  Lord,  that  hath  mercy 
v thee.”  Isa.  liv.  10. 

5.  Omnipresence.  This  is  one  of  the  essential  attributes 
of  God.  It  is  his  prerogative  to  be  everywhere.  Some 
make  a distinction  between  the  omnipresence  and  the  im- 
mensity of  God.  This  distinction  will  be  sufficiently  de- 
noted by  the  following  words : “ When  we  call  his  essence 
immense,  we  mean  that  it  has  no  limits;  when  we  say 
that  it  is  omnipresent,  we  signify  that  it  is  wherever 
creatures  are.”1  We  can  imagine  remote  tracts  of  space 
where  creatures  are  not  and  have  never  been,  but  God  is 
there.  In  those  places  the  doctrine  of  his  immensity  is 
exemplified,  but  we,  for  obvious  reasons,  are  more  inte- 
rested in  his  omnipresence.  He  is  emphatically  present 
wherever  his  creatures  are.  We  are  lost  in  wonder  in 
contemplating  this  fact.  We  know  that  there  are  hun- 
dreds of  millions  of  human  beings  in  the  world.  They 
are  on  the  land,  and  on  the  sea,  and  in  the  isles  of  the 
sea.  Some  of  them  are  in  high  and  some  in  low  posi- 
tions, some  rich  and  others  poor,  some  wise  and  others 
ignorant,  some  righteous  and  others  wicked — all  hasten- 
ing to  eternity;  but  the  presence  of  God  is  with  every 
one  of  them.  There  is  no  place  on  this  planet  where 
God  is  not.  If  we  leave  this  world  and  go  in  our  con- 
templations to  heaven,  to  “ the  innumerable  company  of 
angeb,”  to  the  various  orders  of  the  celestial  hosts,  we 
shall  find  that  God  is  present  with  them  all.  Even  if  the 
1 Dick’s  Theology,  Lecture  19. 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


49 


theories  of  some  astronomers  be  true,  and  there  are  so 
many  worlds  that  their  number  cannot  be  computed, 
and  all  peopled  with  rational  beings,  God  is  in  all  those 
worlds  and  present  with  every  one  of  those  beings.  Well 
did  David  say,  ‘ Whither  shall  I go  from  thy  Spirit,  or 
whither  shall  I flee  from  thy  presence?  If  I ascend  up 
into  heaven,  thou  art  there ; if  I make  my  bed  in  hell, 
behold,  thou  art  there.  If  I take  the  wings  of  the  morn- 
ing, and  dw^ell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea,  even 
there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall 
hold  me.  If  I say,  Surely  the  darkness  shall  cover  me, 
even  the  night  shall  be  light  about  me.  Yea,  the  dark- 
ness hideth  not  from  thee,  but  the  night  shineth  as  the 
day ; the  darkness  and  the  light  are  both  alike  to  thee.” 
Ps.  cxxxix.  7-12. 

How  transcendently  great  is  God ! How  deeply  should 
his  omnipresence  impress  us ! The  practical  influence  of 
the  doctrine  should  ever  be  seen  in  restraining  from  sin. 
God  is  everywhere.  How  absurd  to  suppose  that  sin  can 
be  committed  wdiere  he  is  not ! He  is  in  every  place.  He 
knows  every  act  performed,  every  word  spoken,  every 
thought  entertained,  every  feeling  indulged. 

“ Oh,  may  these  thoughts  possess  my  breast 
Where’er  I rove,  where’er  I rest  I 
Nor  let  my  weaker  passions  dare 
Consent  to  sin,  for  God  is  there.’* 

6.  Omnipotence . By  this  attribute  of  God  is  meant  ms 
unlimited  power,  his  power  to  do  whatever  he  chooses  to 
do.  Finite  beings  can  form  nothing  more  than  a feeble 
conception  of  this  power.  They  exercise  what  power  they 
have  in  contracted  spheres  and  under  necessary  limita- 
tions. It  is  a secondary  power  derived  from  God  the 
Source  of  supreme  power.  Accustomed  to  manifesto 

5 


50 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


tions  of  imperfect  power  among  men, {we  ^ara^miazed  in 
contemplating  the  almighty  power  of  Go(^(His  omnipo- 
tence, hoover,  is  conceded  by  all  who  believe  in  his  ex- 
istencg^ (There  is  no  more  striking  proof  of  divine  power 
than  the  work  of  creation.  central  idea  in  the  term 

“ creation  ” is  the  production  of  something  out  of  nothing. 
To  create  is  not  to  select  and  adjust  pre-existent  mate- 
rials, but  to  give  existence  to  that  which  did  not  exist 
before.  A created  thing  springs  of  necessity  from  the 
abyss  of  nothingness.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  omnip- 
otence alone  was  adequate  to  the  work  of  creation  as 
described  in  the  divine  word.  God  was  able  to  perform 
this  work,  because  the  attribute  of  omnipotence  belongs 
inalienably  to  him.  Hence  we  read,  “ In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.”  Gen.  i.  1.  He 
said,  “ Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light.”  Gen.  i.  3. 
The  ease  writh  which  this  majestic  work  was  done  seems 
to  be  indicated  by  the  Psalmist:  “He  spake,  and  it  was 
done;  he  commanded,  and  it  stood  fast.”  Ps.  xxxiii.  9. 
The  almighty  power  of  God  is  seen,  not  only  in  the  crea- 
tion of  all  things,  but  also  in  their  preservation.  He  is 
said  to  “ uphold  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,”  and 
“by  him  all  things  consist.”  Heb.  i.  3;  Col.  i.  17.  The 
preservation  of  all  things  requires  the  constant  exertion 
of  the  power  employed  in  their  creation.  When  we  re- 
member that  God  created  things  visible  and  invisible ; 
that  the  invisible  are  far  more  numerous  than  the  visi- 
ble ; and  that  all  these  things,  seen  and  unseen,  are  kept 
in  existence  by  him, — we  are  filled  wTith  reverential  awe. 
We  recognize  the  truth  of  the  words  addressed  to  Abra- 
ham : “ I am  the  Almighty  God.”  Gen.  xxvii.  1.  The 
Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New, 
ascribe  omnipotence  to  Jehovah.  We  therefore  read, 
“Thou,  even  thou,  art  Lord  alone;  thou  hast  made 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOB. 


51 

heaven,  the  heaven  of  heavens,  with  all  their  host,  the 
earth  and  all  things  that  are  therein,  the  seas  and  all 
that  is  therein,  and  thou  preservest  them  all;  and  the 
host  of  heaven  worshippeth  thee.”  Neh.  ix.  6.  “ Behold, 

thou  hast  made  the  heaven  and  the  earth  by  thy  great 
power  and  stretched  out  arm,  and  there  is  nothing  too 
hard  for  thee.”  Jer.  xxxii.  17.  “ With  God  all  things  are 
possible.”  Matt.  xix.  26.  “The  Lord  God  omnipotent 
reigneth.”  Rev.  xix.  6. 

Those  who  love  God  may  well  rejoice  in  the  thought 
that  all  power  is  his,  that  he  sits  on  the  throne,  sways 
a universal  sceptre,  controls  all  things,  and  exercises  his 
omnipotence  in  behalf  of  those  who  trust  in  him. 

7.  jQmmscience.  This  term  denotes  the  infinite  intelli- 
gence of  God — his  knowledge  of  all  things.  Like  every 
other  attribute  we  have  considered,  the  omniscience  of 
God  defies  our  comprehension.  We  know  very  little,  and 
while  in  this  world  will  probably  not  turn  over  the  first 
page  of  the  book  of  knowledge.  How  impossible,  then, 
to  take  in  the  idea  of  universal  knowledge!  The  little 
knowledge  we  acquire  is  usually  gained  by  laborious 
study.  (We  learn  one  thing,  and  infer  from  it  another,  and 
thus  we  proceed,  drawing  conclusions  which  we  lay  down 
as  premises  from  which  to  draw  other  conclusions.  How, 
then,  can  we  comprehend  the  Infinite  Mind,  which  knows 
all  things  by  intuition?  We  speak  of  knowledge  as  of 
the  past,  the  present,  and  the  future.  What  shall  we  say 
of  God,  to  whom  the  past  and  the  future  are  not  distin- 
guished from  the  present,  and  whose  knowledge,  therefore, 
is  not  successive,  hut  perfectly  simultaneous  ? The  Psalm- 
ist’s words  at  once  suggest  themselves : “ Such  knowledge 
is  too  wonderful  for  me ; it  is  high,  I cannot  attain  unto 
it.”  Ps.  cxxxix.  6.  The  omniscience  of  God  is  in  harmony 
- with  his  omnipresence  and  his  omnipotence.  Being  every- 

11BKARY 

II  f 


52 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


where  in  all  parts  of  his  vast  dominions  at  ah  times,  he 
knows  what  needs  to  be  done,  and  his  omnipotence  is 
equal  to  any  exigency  that  may  arise.  What  a blessing 
that  the  universe  has  an  omnipresent,  omnipotent,  and 
omniscient  God ! 

The  theory  which  some  hold  concerning  the  omnisci- 
ence of  God  is  an  absurdity — namely,  that  as  God’s  om- 
nipotence is  his  ability  to  do  all  things  he  pleases  to  do, 
but  he  does  not  please  to  do  all  things ; so  his  omnis- 
cience is  his  ability  to  know  all  things,  but  he  does  not 
choose  to  know  all  things.  To  banish  this  theory  from 
the  world  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that,  even  in  accord- 
ance with  it,  God  must  first  know  all  things  before 
he  could  decide  which  to  know  and  which  not  to 
know. 

The  doctrine  of  God’s  omniscience  is  clearly  revealed 
in  the  Bible,  as  the  following  passages  show:  “The  Lord 
searcheth  all  hearts,  and  understandeth  all  the  imagina- 
tions of  the  thoughts.”  1 Chron.  xxviii.  9.  “ His  under- 

standing is  infinite.”  Ps.  cxlvii.  5.  “ I am  God  and  there  is 
none  like  me,  declaring  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and 
from  ancient  times  the  things  that  are  not  yet  done.”  Isa. 
xlvi.  9,  10.  “ Oh,  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wis- 

dom and  knowledge  of  God !”  Rom.  xi.  33.  “ All  things  are 
naked  and  opened  unto  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we 
have  to  do.”  Heb.  iv.  13.  “ For  if  our  heart  condemn  us, 

God  is  greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all  things.” 
1 John  iii.  20.  “And  all  the  churches  shall  know  that 
I am  he  who  searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts.”  Rev. 
ii.  23. 

Reflections  on  the  omniscience  of  God  should  afford 
his  people  comfort  and  joy  at  all  times,  but  especially 
when  their  motives  are  misconceived,  their  words  misin- 
terpreted, and  their  acts  misconstrued.  It  is  a source 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


53 


of  high  satisfaction  on  such  occasions  to  think  that  God, 
who  knows  all  things,  looks  approvingly  on  his  per- 
secuted children. 

II.  The  Moral  Attributes  of  God. 

1 . Goodness.  The  disposition  in  God  to  impart  happi- 
ness to  his  creatures  is  called  his  goodness.  Whether  the 
term  hippiness  can  be  properly  applied  to  irrational  crea- 
tures may  be  questioned ; but  they  experience  what  is 
called  animal  enjoyment.  Of  this,  the  gambols  of  lambs 
and  the  singing  of  birds  are  proofs.  There  is,  perhaps, 
much  more  of  this  enjoyment  among  the  various  orders 
of  animals  than  we  suppose.  According  to  their  differ- 
ent capacities,  they  find  satisfaction,  and  even  pleasure, 
in  the  spheres  in  which  they  move.  Their  eyes  wait  on 
God,  and  he  giveth  them  their  meat  in  due  season.  Thus 
he  displays  his  goodness,  but  this  is  the  lower  grade  of 
his  goodness ; its  higher  manifestations  have  reference 
to  rational  and  accountable  beings. 

God  is  good  to  angels.  His  love  is  in  constant  exercise 
toward  them,  and  is  included  in  his  goodness.  This  love 
is  expressed  in  their  preservation  and  in  the  bestowal  of 
all  the  blessings  which  render  their  existence  a perpetual 
joy.  They  derive  their  happiness  from  God,  for  he  is  the 
“ blessed  ” or  “ happy  God,”  the  fountain  of  felicity,  and 
it  is  his  delight  to  communicate  of  his  blessedness  to  all 
the  angelic  hosts.  He  is  ever  displaying  his  goodness 
and  manifesting  his  love.  It  has  been  his  pleasure  to 
give  to  angels  a nature  which,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  ex- 
clusively spiritual.  If  we  ask  why,  the  answer  is  to  be 
found  in  the  words  of  Jesus:  “Even  so,  Father,  for  so 
it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight.”  Matt.  xi.  26. 

God's  goodness  to  men  has  been  differently  manifested. 
They  are  complex  beings,  made  up  of  body  and  spirit, 

5 * 


54 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


The  divine  goodness  is  seen  in  their  twofold  organization. 
The  constitution  of  their  bodies  is  such  that  their  senses 
are  inlets  of  great  pleasure  and  enjoyment.  Who  does 
not  say  with  Solomon,  “ Truly  the  light  is  sweet,  and  a 
pleasant  thing  it  is  for  the  eyes  to  behold  the  sun  ” ? Eccles. 
xi.  7.  WTho  has  not  enjoyed  the  fragrance  of  flowTers? 
Who  has  not  been  thrown  into  ecstasy  by  the  swTeet 
strains  of  music?  God  might  have  made  the  senses 
the  medium  only  of  pain  and  disgust:  he  might  have 
rendered  every  object  of  sight  as  repulsive  as  the  loath- 
some serpent,  every  object  of  taste  as  bitter  as  wormwood, 
every  object  of  smell  as  offensive  as  a putrefying  carcass, 
every  object  of  touch  as  painful  as  the  piercing  of  the 
thorn,  and  every  sound  as  doleful  as  the  wail  of  sorrow. 
God’s  goodness  is  seen  in  the  formation  of  our  bodies 
with  a view  to  physical  enjoyment. 

So  also  of  our  mental  constitution.  How  elevated  are 
the  pleasures  of  the  intellect!  The  powers  of  the  mind, 
if  rightly  improved,  are  sources  of  much  enjoyment. 
Who  in  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  has  not  been  made 
glad  ? Who  has  not  felt  the  impulse  to  strive  after  higher 
and  larger  attainments  ? It  is  the  possession  of  intellect 
which  raises  man  above  the  beasts  that  perish  and  allies 
him  to  the  angels  of  God.  Indeed,  so  far  as  his  intellect- 
ual nature  is  concerned,  man,  even  since  his  fall,  is  made 
after  the  similitude  of  God.  James  iii.  9.  He  is  a rational 
creature ; and  when  we  think  of  the  pleasures  resulting 
from  rationality,  we  see  plainly  the  goodness  of  God  in 
man’s  mental  constitution. 

His  moral  organization  likewise  indicates  the  goodness 
of  God.  This  is  inseparable  from  his  mental  constitu- 
tion. He  is  a moral,  accountable  agent,  because  he  is  a 
rational  creature.  His  rational  nature  makes  him  a 
proper  subject  of  moral  government,  and  his  moral  na- 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


55 


ture  enables  him  to  appreciate  his  relations  to  God  and 
to  hold  fellowship  with  him.  Evidently,  man  was  made 
that  he  might  glorify  God  and  enjoy  him  for  ev^r,  and 
the  adaptation  of  his  moral  nature  to  these  ends  shows 
the  goodness  of  God. 

Time  would  fail  in  referring  to  the  providential  bless- 
ings which  God  bestows  on  men.  From  the  cradle  to  the 
grave  there  is  a constant  succession  of  providential  kind- 
nesses which  proclaim  the  goodness  of  God.  Thus  are  we 
reminded  of  the  words  of  David:  “The  Lord  is  good  to 
all.”  Ps.  cxlv.  9.  The  goodness  or  love  of  God  in  re- 
demption is  supremely  worthy  of  notice.  This  phase 
of  divine  goodness  has  to  do,  not  with  angels,  but  with 
men.  It  is  peculiar  to  sinners  of  Adam’s  fallen  race.  It 
is  therefore  written,  “ God  commendeth  his  love  toward 
us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us.” 
Rom.  v.  8.  “ Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but 

that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins.”  1 John  iv.  10.  To  a certain  point  the  good- 
ness or  love  of  God  to  angels  and  men  is  identical  and 
coincident,  but  beyond  that  point  it  may  be  said,  so  far  as 
men  are  concerned,  to  diverge  into  grace  and  mercy.  That 
is  to  say,  grace  and  mercy  are  terms  not  applicable  to 
holy  angels,  but  to  sinful  men.  Grace  always  implies 
unworthiness  in  its  recipients.  They  are  unworthy,  be- 
cause they  are  sinners.  Their  sinfulness  creates  their  un- 
worthiness. If  saved,  they  must  be  saved  as  unworth}r, 
and  therefore  saved  by  grace.  There  is  no  salvation  to 
the  unworthy  but  by  grace,  and  grace  implies  the  justice 
of  the  condemnation  of  the  unworthy;  for  if  they  are  not 
justly  condemned,  they  may  claim  deliverance  from  con- 
demnation as  a matter  of  right  and  of  debt.  The  capita] 
fact  of  the  gospel  is  that  grace  reigns  in  the  salvation  of 
the  unworthy.  While  grace  regards  men  as  unworthy, 


56 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


mercy  contemplates  them  as  miserable  and  wretched.  It 
therefore  means  all  that  is  included  in  pity,  compassion, 
and  kindred  terms.  The  goodness  of  God,  assuming  the 
form  of  mercy,  commiserates  sinners  in  their  ruin  and 
wretchedness.  This  mercy  will  be  glorified  in  the  sal 
vation  of  unnumbered  millions  in  heaven. 

2.  Justice.  This  attribute  may  be  considered  in  two 
aspects — internal  and  external.  In  the  former  sense,  it 
refers  to  ttie^lmoral  uprightness  and  excellence  of  the 
divine  character;  in  the  latter,  to  the  inflexible  recti- 
tude of  the  divine  conduct.  God  is  infinitely  just.  In 
his  bosom  justice  has  its  seat  and  its  throne.  Because  of 
the  perfect  righteousness  of  his  character  it  is  infallibly 
certain  that  he  will  do  right — that  is,|act  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  of  justice.N  He  can  make  no  compro- 
mise with  wrong,  nor  can  he  “connive  at  evil  in  any  of  its 
forms.  The  thought  of  injustice  is  infinitely  remote  from 
him.  Being  perfectly  just,  he  is  just  in  all  he  does.  The 
Bible  therefore  says,  “ The  Lord  is  righteous  in  all  his 
ways.”  Ps.  cxlv.  17.  He  himself  says,  “Judgment  also 
will  I lay  to  the  line,  and  righteousness  to  the  plummet  ” 
(Isa.  xxviii.  17),  and  Paul  declares  that  God  “ will  judge  the 
world  in  righteousness.”  Acts  xvii.  31.  A reference  to  the 
day  of  judgment  suggests  that  on  that  day  the  ways  of 
God  will  be  vindicated,  and  it  will  be  clearly  seen  that  in 
his  government  of  the  world,  and  in  the  distribution  of 
the  rewards  and  punishments  of  eternity,  there  has  not 
been  the  slightest  deviation  from  the  great  principles  of 
justice.  God  not  only  administers  the  affairs  of  his  vast 
empire  in  accordance  with  righteousness,  but  he  intends 
that  4II  the  subjects  of  that  empire  shall  see  and  acknow- 
ledge it. 

The  justice  of  God  sustains  so  important  a relation  to 
sin  that  it  has  been  considered  by  some  as  the  perfection 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


57 


which  is  specially  displayed  in  the  punishment  of  sin. 
It  certainly  requires  the  punishment  of  sinners,  and  they 
should  be  punished  on  account  of  their  ill-desert.  No 
other  thQory  of  punishment  is  defensible.  Two  theories 
have  been  earnestly  advocated : The  one  affirms  that 
punishment  should  be  inflicted  with  a view  to  the  refor- 
mation of  the  guilty ; and  the  other,  with  a view  to  the 
prevention  of  crime.  According  to  the  former  opinion, 
if  the  guilty  are  too  bad  to  be  reformed,  they  need  not 
be  punished  ; so  that  the  more  wicked  a criminal  is,  the 
less  propriety  there  is  in  punishing  him.  This  is  too 
absurd  to  think  of.  According  to  the  latter  opinion,  it 
would  follow  that  there  is  no  reason  why  the  guilty  alone 
should  suffer  punishment.  It  might,  according  to  this 
theory,  be  applied  to  any  person  whatever,  if  there  were 
any  danger  at  all  that  he  might  be  led  into  sin.  It  would 
be  merciful  to  inflict  the  punishment  beforehand,  and  pre- 
vent him  from  incurring  guilt.  Neither  opinion  will  stand 
examination.  The  reformation  of  criminals  and  the  preven- 
tion of  crime  are  only  secondary  objects  in  punishment. 
The  primary,  the  supreme,  reason  for  the  infliction  of  pun- 
ishment is  found  in  the  fact  that  there is  inherent  ill-desert 
in  sin,  and  therefore  the  guilty  deserve  to  be  punished. 

The  death  of  Christ  furnishes  the  most  impressive  and 
even  appalling  exhibition  of  divine  justice.  An  able 
writer  has  forcibly  said,  “ If  God  could  have  permitted 
sin  to  escape  with  impunity,  if  the  determination  to 
punisb  it  had  not  proceeded  from  his  nature,  but  merely 
from  his  will,  he  would  not  have  subjected  his  own  Son 
to  a cruel  and  ignominious  death.  . . . No ; the  unavoid- 
able conclusion  is,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  the  indis- 
pensable condition  of  the  redemption  of  the  world ; that  the 
designs  of  mercy,  abstractly  considered,  were  at  variance 
with  the  demands  of  justice ; and  that,  to  establish  har- 


58 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


mony  between  them,  it  was  necessary  that  justice  should 
be  satisfied.  This  wras  the  most  solemn  display  of  justice 
— the  highest  proof  that  it  is  as  truly  an  attribute  of  the 
divine  nature  as  power  and  wisdom.  It  no  longer 
admits  of  a doubt  that  there  is  a necessary  connection 
between  guilt  and  punishment.  Who  can  hope  for  impu- 
nity if  the  Son  of  God  did  not  escape?”1 

3.  Veracity.  Writers  on  theology  usually  employ  the 
term  “ truth  55  in  this  connection.  I prefer  veracity,  be- 
cause it  is  more  applicable  to  persons,  while  truth  more 
properly  refers  to  things.  A man  of  veracity  makes  a 
true  statement.  Veracity  is,  therefore,  a personal  moral 
attribute,  and  truth  is  a property  of  things.  This  being 
the  case,  veracity  is  that  perfection  in  God  which  renders 
all  his  judgments  according  to  truth,  which  prompts  him 
to  say  what  is  true,  and  which  makes  it  impossible  for 
him  to  lie.  The  impossibility  is  moral,  not  natural. 
That  is,  God  has  the  natural  ability  to  say  what  is  not 
true,  but  the  infinite  excellence  of  his  character,  including 
his  ve.rs.city,  makes  it  morally  impossible  for  him  to  lie. 
Jesus  in  praying  for  his  disciples  addressed  his  Father 
thus : u Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth : thy  word  is 
truth.”  John  xvii.  17.  The  word  of  God  is  true,  because  ve- 
racity is  one  of  the  attributes  of  his  moral  character.  Whatr 
ever  that  word  says  as  to  the  past,  the  present,  or  the 
future  is  true,  for  the  truth  of  God  endures  to  all  gen- 
erations. 4C  A God  of  truth  and  without  iniquity,  just  and 
right  is  he.”  Deut.  xxxii.  4.  Truth,  in  the  highest  sense 
of  the  word,  is  a correct  representation  of  things  as 
they  have  been,  as  they  now  are,  or  as  they  will  be  for  ever. 
In  this  view7  the  term  truth  is  fully  applicable  to  all 
that  God  says,  for,  though  heaven  and  earth  shall  pass 
away,  his  words  will  not  pass  away. 

1 Dick’s  'Eulogy,  Lecture  xxv. 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


59 


The  veracity  of  God  comprehends  his  faithfulness,  and 
his  faithfulness  includes  the  fulfilment  of  his  promises 
and  the  execution  of  his  threatenings.  The  certain  per- 
formance of  the  divine  promises  may  be  argued  from  the 
omniscience  of  God.  Men  make  promises,  not  knowing 
the  future ; and  the  occurrences  of  the  future  make  the 
doing  of  what  they  had  promised  impossible.  It  is  not 
so  with  God.  When  he  made  his  promises,  he  knew  all 
the  future;  and  if  he  had  seen  anything  to  prevent  their 
accomplishment,  they  would  not  have  been  made.  The 
promises  are  given  in  Christ:  Paul  says,  “For  all  the 
promises  of  God  in  him  are  yea,  and  in  him  Amen,  unto 
the  glory  of  God 'by  us.”  2 Cor.  i.  20.  As  the  promises 
are  in  Christ,  God  in  fulfilling  them  will,  if  I may  so  say, 
draw  on  the  exhaustless  mediatorial  resources  of  his 
beloved  Son.  Then,  too,  as  the  promises  are  to  the 
divine  glory,  whatever  considerations  prompt  God  to 
take  care  of  his  glory  will  prompt  him  to  fulfil  his 
promises.  This  of  itself  is  a sufficient  reason  jbr  believ- 
ing that  God  will  do  what  he  has  promised.  The  prom- 
ises of  God,  giving  his  people  assurances  of  blessings  on 
earth  and  in  heaven,  open  to  view  a sacred  realm  too  large 
to  be  explored.  I do  not  enter  it,  but  only  say  that  the 
day  will  doubtless  come  when  all  the  redeemed  from  the 
heights  of  glory  will  say,  as  did  Joshua  on  his  dying 
day,  “Not  one  thing  hath  failed  of  all  the  good  things 
which  the  Lord  your  God  spake  concerning  you.”  Josh, 
xxiii.  14. 

God  show7s  his  faithfulness  to  his  word  in  executing 
his  threatenings.  His  veracity  makes  the  execution  of  his 
threatenings  as  certain  as  the  performance  of  his  prom- 
ises. His  incorrigible  enemies  cannot  escape  his  wrath 
“ There  is  no  darkness,  nor  shadow  of  death,  where  tli€ 
workers  of  iniquity  may  hide  themselves.”  Job  xxxiv 


60 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


22.  On  the  very  day  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  come 
“ to  be  glorified  in  his  saints  ” we  are  told  that  he  “ will 
be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flam- 
ing fire  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and 
that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ:  who 
shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power.” 
2 Thess.  i.  7-9.  Fidelity  to  his  word,  whether  it  be 
word  of  promise  or  wrord  of  threatening,  is  included  in 
Ciod’s  veracity. 

4.  Wisdom.  There  is  a distinction  between  omniscience 
and  wisdom.  We  may  conceive  of  knovdedge  so  vast  as 
to  imply  acquaintance  with  all  things,  and  we  may 
imagine  such  knowledge  as  unused  or  not  used  for 
valuable  purposes.  In  this  there  would  be  no  wisdom, 
for  fgdsdom  always  makes  use  of  knowledge  for  some 
good  end.  Wisdom  implies  knowledge.  To  this  extent 
it  may  be  classed  among  the  natural  attributes  of  God. 
But  there  is  something  in  wisdom  additional  to  know- 
ledge ; and# wisdom  in  this  sense,  as  using  knowledge  for 
purposes  worthy  of  the  moral  character  of  God,  may  be 
regarded  as  one  of  his  moral  attributes.  Or  it  may  be 
considered  as  a divine  attribute  partly  natural  and 
partly  moral.  The  proofs  of  God’s  wisdom  in  creation, 
providence,  and  redemption  justify  this  view.  It  has 
been  said  so  often  as  to  be  quite  familiar,  that  wisdom 
consists  in  the  choice  of  proper  ends,  and  proper  means 
to  accomplish  them.  The  two  things  must  be  united. 
Unworthy  ends,  whatever  the  means  to  effect  them, 
would  exhibit  no  wisdom ; and  worthy  ends  with  means 
bo  unsuitable  as  to  defeat  their  accomplishment  would 
be  no  proof  of  wisdom.  In  the  works  of  God  we  have 
worthy  ends  and  proper  means.  David,  in  referring  to 
these  works,  said,  “ 0 Lord,  how  manifold  are  thy  works  I 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD . 


61 


in  wisdom  hast  thou  made  them  all.”  Ps.  civ.  24.  In  an 
exhaustive  work  on  this  subject  specific  references  would 
be  made  to  his  various  works  as  showing  the  wisdom  of 
God.  It  would  be  interesting  thus  to  dwell  on  the  for- 
mation of  the  earth,  the  constitution  of  the  atmosphere, 
the  tides  of  the  ocean,  the  position  of  the  sun,  the  in- 
stincts of  animals,  the  bodily  organism  of  the  human 
frame,  man’s  intellectual  powers,  his  consciousness  of 
accountability  and  free  agency,  and  all  the  works  of  crea- 
tion opened  to  our  view.  But  we  can  only  make  to  thesa 
this  brief  reference.  The  providence  of  God  also  opens 
a large  volume  illustrative  of  his  wisdom.  Into . this 
volume  we  must  not  look  even  far  enough  to  see  how 
wisely  God  preserves  and  governs  what  he  has  made. 

Redemption  through  Christ  is  a luminous  display  of 
the  wisdom  of  God.  Wisdom  appears  in  rendering  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  man  compatible;  in 
harmonizing  law  and  justice  with  mercy ; in  manifesting 
divine  love  to  sinners  and  hatred  of  their  sins;  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  conscience  is  tranquillized ; in  pro- 
viding for  the  interests  of  practical  holiness ; in  humbling 
and  elevating  the  saved ; and  in  making  the  Saviour’s 
death,  instigated  by  Satan,  the  means  of  overturning 
Satan’s  empire.  Who  can  contemplate  topics  like  these 
without  adopting  the  words  of  Paul  ? — “ Wherein  he  hath 
abounded  toward  us  in  all  wisdom  and  prudence.”  Eph. 
i.  8.  Who  does  not  exclaim  ? — “ Oh,  the  depth  of  the 
riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God!” 
Rom.  xi.  33.  It  is  not  strange  that  angels  are  students 
of  the  science  of  redemption,  for  we  are  told  that  they 
desire  to  look  into  the  things  reported  in  the  gospel. 

5.  JJptrf&ss.  The  holiness  of  God  is  often  assigned  a 
place  among  the  moral  attributes  of  the  divine  nature ; 
yet,  strictly  speaking,  it  is  not  a single  attribute,  but 

ft 


(52 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


rather  a combination  of  all  the  moral  attributes  of  God 
If  we  consider  this  combination,  this  aggregation,  of 
moral  perfections,  and  gaze  on  the  glory  radiating  there- 
from, we  shall  probably  have  the  scriptural  idea  of  “the 
beauty  of  holiness.”  The  definition  of  the  term  holiness, 
as  now  given,  will  enable  us  to  understand  several  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  in  which  there  seems  to  be  a manifest 
purpose  to  ascribe  all  moral  excellence  to  God,  and  yet 
he  is  not  referred  to  as  good  and  just,  but  only  as  holy. 
The  following  is  a specimen  of  these  passages : “ Who  is 
like  unto  thee,  0 Lord,  among  the  gods?  who  is  like 
thee,  glorious  in  holiness,  fearful  in  praises,  doing  won- 
ders?” Ex.  xv.  11.  “Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of 
hosts:  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory.”  Isa.  vi.  3. 
“Be  ye  holy,  for  I am  holy.”  1 Pet.  i.  16.  “Who  shall 
not  fear  thee,  0 Lord,  and  glorify  thy  name?  for  thou 
only  art  holy.”  Rev.  xv.  4.  It  would  be  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  in  these  passages  goodness,  justice,  and  veracity 
are  not  attributed  to  God,  but  they  are  not  mentioned. 
They  are,  however,  comprehended  in  the  holiness,  which 
is  evidently  referred  to  as  inclusive  of  the  moral  excel- 
lences of  the  divine  character.  The  view  now  expressed 
concerning  the  holiness  of  God  is  substantially  the  view 
of  Andrew  Fuller.  He  uses  the  following  words  : “ There 
3'e  certain  perfections  which  all  who  acknowledge  a God 
agree  in  attributing  to  him ; such  are  those  of  wisdom, 
power,  immutability,  etc.  These,  by  Christian  divines, 
are  usually  termed  his  natural  perfections.  There  are 
others  which  no  less  evidently  belong  to  Deity,  such  aa 
goodness,  justice,  veracity,  etc.,  all  which  may  be  ex- 
pressed in  one  word — holiness;  and  these  are  usually 
termed  his  moral  perfections.”  1 
A profound  American  theologian  uses  these  words 
1 Complete  Works , vol.  ii.  p.  9. 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


63 


u Goodness,  truth,  and  justice  are  moral  attributes  of  God. 
Holiness  is  not  an  attribute  distinct  from  these,  but  a 
name  which  includes  them  all,  in  view  of  their  opposi* 
tion  to  contrary  qualities.  It  implies  the  perfection  of 
the  assemblage — the  absence  of  everything  in  it  contrary 
to  either  of  the  properties  included.”1 

Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  expresses  himself  very  forcibly  as 
follows:  “The  holiness  of  God  is  not  to  be  conceived  of 
as  one  attribute  among  others;  it  is  rather  a general  term 
representing  the  conception  of  his  consummate  perfection 
and  total  glory.  It  is  his  infinite  moral  perfection  crown- 
ing his  infinite  intelligence  and  power.  There  is  a glory 
of  each  attribute,  viewed  abstractly,  and  a glory  of  the 
whole  together.  The  intellectual  nature  is  the  essential 
basis  of  the  moral.  Infinite  moral  perfection  is  the 
crown  of  the  Godhead.  Holiness  is  the  total  glory  thus 
crowned.” 2 

Such  is  holiness,  rendering  the  divine  character  the 
bright  centre  in  which  all  the  lines  of  moral  perfection 
and  beauty  and  glory  meet. 

1 Dr.  Dagg’s  Theology , j . 86.  2 Outline*  yf  Theology , pp.  127,  128. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  TRINITY. 

While  the  Bible  teaches  the  unity  of  God — that  there 
is  one  and  only,  one  God — it  also  teaches  that  in  the  one 
Godhead  there  is  a distinction  of  persons.  The  distinc- 
tion is  threefold.  It  is  such  as  to  justify  the  use  of  the 
terms  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  The  recognition  of 
these  three  persons  as  equally  belonging  to  the  Godhead 
is  in  theology  styled  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The 
idea  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  this  term  is  that  of 
three  in  one.  It  is  not  meant  that  the  three  divine  persons 
are  three  in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  one,  or  that  they 
are  one  in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  three.  I have  seen 
no  better  definition  of  the  term  Trinity  than  I find  in 
Webster’s  Dictionary — namely,  “The  union  of  three  per- 
sons (the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit)  in  one 
Godhead,  so  that  all  the  three  are  one  God  as  to  sub- 
stance, but  three  persons  as  to  individuality.”  It  must 
be  admitted  that  the  word  person  in  its  Trinitarian  sense 
is  not  wholly  free  from  objection,  but  it  seems  to  be  un- 
derstood by  orthodox  writers  that  there  is  no  better  word. 
The  objection  is,  that  it  cannot  be  used  in  its  common 
acceptation  as  applied  to  human  beings.  It  needs  modi- 
fication. For  example,  person  in  the  ordinary  use  of  the 
term  means  a distinct  and  independent  being,  so  that  one 
person  is  one  being,  and  a hundred  persons  are  a hundred 


THE  TRINITY. 


65 


beings.  But  ui  the  Godhead  there  are  three  persons  and  one 
Being.  The  dissimilarity  in  the  two  instances  is  manifest. 
^The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  one  of  mysterious  gran-  - 
deur,  which  defies  the  comprehension  of  every  finite  mind, 
and  must  be  received  as  true  on  the  authority  of  the  Bi- 
bleQ  The  wisest  men  have  most  readily  confessed  theii 
inability  to  explain  Trinity  in  Unity  or  Unity  in  Trinity. 
Prof.  Moses  Stuart  well  remarks,  in  his  second  letter  to 
Dr.  Channing:  “ What,  then,  you  will  doubtless  ask,  is  the 
specific  nature  of  that  distinction  in  the  Godhead  which 
the  word  person  is  meant  to  designate  ? I answer,  without 
hesiti  tion,  that  I do  not  know.  The  fact  that  a distinction 
exists  is  what  we  aver;  the  specific  definition- of  that  dis- 
tinction is  what  I shall  by  no  means  .attempt  to  make 
out.  By  what  shall  I,  or  can  I,  define  it  ? What  simile 
drawn  from  created  objects,  which  are  necessarily  derived 
and  dependent , can  illustrate  the  mode  of  existence  in  that 
Being  who  is  underived,  independent,  unchangeable,  in- 
finite, eternal  ? I confess  myself  unable  to  advance  a sin- 
gle step  here  in  explaining  what  the  distinction  is.  I re 
ceive  the  fact  that  it  exists , simply  because  I believe  that  the 
Scriptures  reveal  the  fact.  And  if  the  Scriptures  do  reveal 
the  fact  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  ; that 
there  is  a distinction  which  affords  grounds  for  the  re- 
spective appellations  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ; 
which  lays  the  foundation  for  the  application  of  the  per- 
sonal pronouns,/,  Thou,  He ; which  renders  it  proper  to 
speak  of  sending  and  being  sent;  to  speak  of  Christ  as 
being  with  God , being  in  his  bosom , and  of  other  things  of 
the  like  nature  in  the  like  way,  and  yet  to  hold  that  the 
divine  nature  equally  belongs  to  each, — then  it  is,  like 
every  fact  revealed,  to  be  received  simply  on  the  credit 
of  divine  revelation.”  1 

1 Miscellanies , p.  23. 

6* 


66 


CHitlSTIA  N DOCTRINES . 


It  has  by  some  been  made  an  objection  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  that  the  word  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible.  This  is  true,  but  there  is  no  weight  in  the  objec- 
tion if  what  is  meant  by  the  term  is  there ; and  this  I 
shall  attempt  to  show.  I merely  notice,  without  enlarg- 
ing on  the  fact,  that  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  several 
places,  when  God  speaks  the  plural  number  is  used,  as  in 
the  following  passages : “ Let  us  make  man  in  our  image ;” 
“Behold  the  man  is  become  as  cne  cf  us;”  “Let  us  go 
down  and  there  confound  their  language;”  “Whom  shall 
I send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?”  Gen.  i.  26 ; iii.  22 ; xi. 
7 ; Isa.  vi.  8.  These  forms  of  expression  are  certainly  pe- 
culiar, and  there  is  nothing  incredible  in  the  supposition 
that  they  were  used  as  intimations  of  a plurality  of  per- 
sons in  the  Godhead — a fact  to  be  distinctly  revealed  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  teachings  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles  are  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  In  Matthew 
xxviii.  19,  Jesus  says,  “ Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  [disciple] 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  I shall  enter 
into  no  critical  examination  of  the  import  of  the  phrase 
“in  the  name,”  nor  inquire  whether  it  might  be  more 
properly  rendered  “ into  the  name.”  It  is  enough  for  my 
present  purpose  to  notice  that  baptism  is  connected  with 
the  name  of  every  person  in  the  Godhead.  There  is  no 
consistent  interpretation  of  the  language  which  does  not 
place  on  equality  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  If  the  Deity  of  one  of  these  persons  is  recognized, 
there  is  a recognition  of  the  Deity  of  the  three.  It  is  im- 
possible to  make  a valid  distinction  as  to  equality  and 
sameness  of  nature.  The  Deity  of  the  Father  will  be  ac- 
knowledged by  all  who  believe  there  is  a God.  This 
point,  then,  is  settled.  Now,  as  to  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  could  without  a shudder  hear  of  the  name  of 


TIIE  TRINITY. 


67 


Rngel  or  archangel  as  substituted  in  place  of  the  r.ame  of 
either  ? Why  ? Because  of  the  blasphemous  inconsistency 
of  exalting  creatures  to  an  equality  with  God. 

But  the  name  of  the  Son  and  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  joined  with  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  the 
conjunction  is  so  important  that  the  validity  of  baptism 
is  inseparable  from  it.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  must 
be  true. 

Some,  conceding  the  personality  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son,  have  supposed  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  an  “ energy  ” 
or  an  “influence.”  To  show  the  absurdity  of  this  view  it 
is  only  necessary  to  point  to  the  absurdity  of  baptizing  in 
the  name  of  an  “ energy  ” or  an  “ influence  ” in  connection 
with  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son. 
It  is  plain  that  the  reference,  in  the  last  commission  of 
Christ,  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
a reference  to  persons,  and  not  to  energies  or  influences. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  distinctly  brought  to 
view  in  2 Cor.  xiii.  14  : “ The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all.”  These  words  constitute 
what  is  usually  called  the  apostolic  benediction,  and  they 
are  an  invocation.  The  love  of  God  the  Father  is  in 
voked.  This  is  too  manifest  to  be  denied.  The  grace  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  also  mentioned,  as  is  the  com- 
munion of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  transcends  all  belief  that 
the  grace  of  the  Son  and  the  communion  of  the  Spirit  are 
referred  to  in  immediate  connection  with  the  love  of  God 
the  Father  if  the  three  persons  are  not  the  same  in  sub- 
stance and  equal  in  glory.  Should  the  names  Gabriel  and 
Michael,  conspicuous  among  angelic  spirits,  be  put  in 
place  of  the  names  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  Holy  Spirit, 
all  who  reverence  the  Scriptures  would  revolt  from  the 
blasphemous  substitution.  They  would  protest  against 


68 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


the  elevation  of  the  highest  order  of  creatures  to  an 
equality  with  God.  In  the  benediction,  however,  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  invoked  as 
well  as  God  the  Father — a fact  which  shows  the  equal- 
ity of  the  three  persons. 

In  Ephesians  ii.  18  we  read,  “ For  through  him  we 
both  have  access  by  one  Spirit  to  the  Father.”  Here  the 
three  persons  of  the  Godhead  are  referred  to,  and  the  pas- 
sage confirms  the  view  already  presented.  In  Revelation  i. 
4,  5 w^e  have  this  remarkable  language : “ Grace  be  unto 
you,  and  peace  from  him  which  is,  and  which  was,  and 
which  is  to  come ; and  from  the  seven  spirits  which  are 
before  his  throne ; and  from  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  faith- 
ful Witness.”  As  seven  was  the  perfect  number  among 
the  Jews,  we  are  to  understand  by  “ the  seven  spirits  ” the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  plenitude  of  his  gifts,  in  the  complete- 
ness and  diversity  of  his  beneficent  operations.  If  this 
view  is  correct,  the  point  to  which  special  attention  is 
called  is,  that  grace  and  peace  are  sought  from  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  from  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  from  him  “ which 
was,  which  is,  and  which  is  to  come.”  These  last  words 
indicate  existence  from  eternity  to  eternity,  one  of  the  at- 
tributes of  Supreme  Deity ; and  as  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  named  in  conjunction  with  him  who  was, 
is,  .and  is  to  come,  the  irresistible  inference  is  that  they 
are  equally  divine. 

The  argument  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  sup* 
plied  by  the  use  of  the  personal  pronouns,  “ Thou , He” 
is  worthy  of  some  expansion.  The  passages  in  the  Bible 
ere  almost  numberless  in  wdiich  God,  in  referring  to  him- 
self, says,  /,  mine , and  me:  “As  I live,  saith  the  Lord;” 
“Ian:  the  Lord;”  “All  souls  are  mine;”  “Every  beast 
of  the  forest  is  mine  ;”  “ Besides  me  there  is  no  Saviour  ;’ 
“ Prove  me  now  herewith,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.”  There 


THE  TRINITY. 


69 


are  passages,  too,  in  which  the  Father  and  the  Son  say 
to  each  other  thou , thee , and  thirx : “ Thou  art  my  Son  ; 
this  day  have  I begotten  thee ;”  “ Thou  hast  loved  right- 
eousness “ As  thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all 
flesh  “All  mine  are  thine,  and  thine  are  mine.”  While 
the  Father  and  the  Son  address  each  other  in  the  use  of 
the  personal  pronouns,  thou , thee , and  thine,  the  Spirit  is 
referred  to  as  he  and  him : “ But  the  Comforter,  which  is 
the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name, 
he  shall  teach  you  all  things”  (John  xiv.  26) ; “He  shall 
glorify  me  ” (xvi.  14) ; “ The  Comforter  whom  I will  send 
unto  you.”  xv.  26.  It  is  needless  to  multiply  proofs  that 
the  Spirit  wTas  to  be  sent  by  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The 
Father  is  said  to  have  sent  the  Son  into  the  world,  but 
neither  the  Son  nor  the  Spirit  is  ever  said  to  have  sent  the 
Father.  The  Son  is  represented  as  becoming  flesh  and 
dying,  but  this  is  not  true  of  the  Father  and  the  Spirit. 
In  view  of  these  significant  facts  it  is  obvious  that  there 
is  such  a threefold  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Godhead 
as  to  justify  and  to  require  the  use  of  the  terms  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit.  Nor  does  this  threefold  distinction  con- 
flict with  the  unity  of  God,  for  the  three  persons  are  one 
in  substance,  while  they  are  three  in  individuality.  These 
two  truths  present  unity  in  Trinity. 

It  may  be  well,  before  dismissing  this  topic,  to  notice 
that  equality  of  nature  may  consist  with  inequality  in 
office.  'The  most  zealous  Trinitarian  will  admit  that 
while  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead  are  equal  in  na- 
ture and  in  essential  glory,  there  is,  on  tne  part  of  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  official  inferiority.  There  are 
various  scriptures  in  which  the  Father  is  represented  as 
supreme  in  office.  That  is,  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  act  in 
subordination  to  him.  For  this  reason  God  is  said  to 
have  sent  his  Son  into  the  world,  and  the  Son  is  said  to 


70 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


have  come  in  the  flesh.  Here  we  have  inferiority,  in  the 
sense  that  he  who  is  sent  is  inferior  to  him  who  sends. 
The  Son  is  also  recognized  as  the  servant  of  the  Father, 
for  it  is  said,  “ Behold  my  servant  whom  I have  chosen.’5 
Matt.  xii.  18.  As  the  servant  is  subordinate  to  the 
master,  so  was  the  Son  subordinate  to  the  Father.  Christ 
said  again  and  again,  u I came  to  do  the  will  of  him  that 
sent  me.15  As  doing  the  will  of  another  denotes  inferior- 
ity, so  Christ  in  doing  the  will  of  the  Father  appears  as 
his  inferior.  But  the  inferiority  is  in  office,  not  in  na- 
ture; the  subordination  is  official,  and  does  not  touch  the 
divine  substance.  Here  there  is  perfect,  undisturbed 
equality.  What  I have  said  of  the  second  person  of  the 
Godhead  may  be  said  substantially  of  the  third.  When 
God  the  Father  says,  “ I will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon 
all  flesh,55  when  he  is  said  to  u give  the  Holy  Spirit,55  and 
when  Jesus  says,  “ The  Comforter  whom  I will  send  unto 
you,55  there  is  manifest  reference  to  inequality  of  office. 
There  is  the  sublimest  equality  of  nature.  Official  infe- 
riority and  natural  equality  may  be  easily  illustrated. 
The  President  of  the  United  States  is  officially  superior 
to  any  and  every  man  in  the  nation.  All  the  men  who 
hold  office  are,  so  far  as  official  position  is  concerned, 
inferior  to  him.  No  one  aspires  to  be  his  equal.  But  in 
nature  every  citizen  of  the  republic  is  his  equal — that  is, 
every  citizen  possesses  the  same  human  nature.  Equality 
in  nature  and  inferiority  in  office  are  therefore  exempli- 
fied in  matters  both  human  and  divine. 

In  contemplating  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  an  un- 
speakable mystery  we  must  ever  guard  against  looking 
on  it  as  a profitless  speculation,  without  practical  influ- 
ence. The  very  fact  that  the  subject  is  so  far  above  our 
comprehension  should  inspire  us  with  reverential  mod- 
esty and  humility.  The  highest  flights  of  reason  cannot 


THE  TRINITY. 


71 


reach  it,  yet  the  doctrine  is  among  “ the  true  sayings  of 
God.”  Alas,  how  little  we  know  ! God  is  infinite — we  are 
finite,  and  can  know  but  little  of  him  and  the  mode  of 
his  existence.  Where  we  cannot  understand,  let  us  won- 
der and  adore.  The  economy  of  redemption  seems  to 
have  been  arranged  in  recognition  of  a distinction  of 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  hence  the  three  persons  are 
represented  as  acting  their  respective  parts  in  the  great 
work.  It  is  our  privilege  to  consider  the  love  which  had 
been  lodged  in  the  Father’s  bosom  from  eternity  as  ex- 
pressing itself  in  the  gift  of  his  Son;  to  contemplate  the 
Son  as  pouring  forth  his  soul  unto  death,  thus  procuring 
redemption  by  his  blood ; and  to  rejoice  in  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  in  renewing  the  heart,  sanctifying  the  soul,  and 
fitting  it  for  heaven.  We  should  never  forget  that  in  bap- 
tism there  is  avowed  consecration  to  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it 
is  recognized  in  baptism,  has  much  to  do  with  experi- 
mental and  practical  piety.  Far,  far  from  us  be  the  idea 
that  the  existence  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  is  a 
barren  speculation.  It  is  a truth  both  mysterious  and 
grand,  and  its  influence  should  be  eminently  salutary. 
One  of  its  effects  should  be  the  stimulation  of  desire  on 
the  part  of  Christians  to  be  one  even  as  the  three  persons 
of  the  Godhead  are  one.  Who  can  think  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  one — one  in  nature,  one  in 
love,  one  in  purpose — and  not  hope  for  the  day  when  the 
intercessory  prayer  of  Christ  will  be  answered*  in  the 
union  of  all  his  followers? 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 

Ii?  the  argument  presented  in  the  foregoing  chapter  is 
conclusive  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the 
Deity  of  Christ  must  be  admitted.  That  is,  if  Christ  is 
the  second  person  of  the  Godhead,  he  is  divine,  the  same 
in  essence  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  wThom 
he  is  by  a blessed  necessity  equal  in  power  and  glory. 
This  being  the  case,  some  suppose  that  a special  discus- 
sion of  Christ’s  Deity  is  needless.  This  is  a very  plausi- 
ble opinion,  to  which  I should  yield  if  the  subject  was 
not  of  transcendent  importance.  Being  fully  satisfied, 
however,  that  the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  is 
the  basis  of  the  system  of  Christianity,  and  that  without 
this  basis  the  system  has  no  saving  value,  I deem  it  prop- 
er to  assign  to  the  Deity  of  Christ  a distinct  prominence. 

Before  adducing  proofs  that  Christ  is  God,  I wish  to 
present  a few  considerations  to  prepare  the  way  for  these 
proofs,  and  to  induce  a higher  appreciation  of  them. 

1.  Christ  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  is  repre- 
sented as  acting  the  part  of  Substitute  for  those  he  came  to  save. 
We  therefore  read,  “But  he  was  wounded  for  our  trans- 
gressions, he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastise- 
ment of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we 

are  healed The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity 

of  us  all.”  Isa.  liii.  5,  6.  “ Even  as  the  Son  of  man  came 

72 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


73 


not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his 
life  a ransom  for  many/’  Matt.  xx.  28.  “ The  good  Shep- 

herd giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep.”  John  x.  11.  u Christ 
lath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made 
a curse  for  us.”  Gal.  iii.  13.  These  are  but  a specimen  of 
the  passages  which  teach  that  Christ  took  the  place  of 
those  whom  he  saves,  and  died  in  their  stead.  I might 
refer  to  other  passages  from  which  we  learn  that  we  are 
forgiven  and  saved  for  Jesus’  sake,  but  it  is  not  necessary. 
It  will  be  conceded  that  the  gospel  teaches  that  sinners 
are  saved,  because  Jesus  has  done  and  suffered  something 
for  them.  As  to  the  specific  nature  of  what  he  did  and 
suffered,  I do  not  now  inquire.  I only  assume  that  he 
was  the  Substitute  of  those  who  are  saved  by  him,  and 
that  they  are  saved  through  his  mediation. 

2.  If  Christ  is  not  divine , he  could  not  have  taken  the  place 
of  sinners , so  as  to  make  atonement  for  their  sins . One  crea- 
ture cannot,  in  the  government  of  God,  take  the  place 
of  another.  An  angel  cannot  act  in  the  room  of  a man. 
Why?  Because  all  that  an  angel  can  do  is,  on  his  own 
personal  account,  due  to  God.  This  is  the  universal  law 
of  creatureship.  It  asserts  its  claims  in  all  worlds,  and 
will  assert  them  for  ever.  Now,  suppose  Christ  to  have-'' 
been  a created  being.  Take  the  Arian  view,  first  espoused 
in  the  fourth  century.  Arius  conceded  that  Christ  was 
the  most  exalted  of  beings,  next  to  God,  but  he  said 
also,  “ There  was  a time  when  the  Son  was  not.”  Thus 
he  refused  to  accord  to  the  Son  the  attribute  of  eternity, 
and  there  cannot  be  Deity  without  eternity  of  existence. 
If  we  suppose,  for  argument’s  sake,  the  doctrine  of  Arius 
to  be  true,  and  that  Christ,  however  highly  exalted  in  the 
6cale  of  being,  is  not  God,  but  a creature,  then  it  follows 
that  he  was  personally  bound  to  serve  God  the  Creator. 
His  creatureship  must  have  imposed  on  him  personal 

7 


74 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


obligations,  rendering  it  impossible  for  him  to  act  in  the 
room  of  others.  Creatureship  and  substitution  are  not 
consistent  with  each  other.  They  cannot  stand  together. 
“ Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with,  all  thy 
strength  ” (Mark  xii.  30),  is  the  law  which  extends  its  jur- 
isdiction over  the  whole  realm  of  creatureship.  If  all  the 
creature’s  strength  is  to  be  exerted  in  the  love  and  service 
of  God  on  account  of  the  creature’s  personal  relation  to 
the  Creator,  then  there  is  no  remaining  strength  to  be 
used  in  any  other  way  or  for  any  other  purpose.  If 
Jesus  was  merely  a created  being,  he  must,  like  other 
creatures,  act  for  himself  alone.  It  is  plain,  therefore, 
that  if  Christ  is  not  divine,  he  could  not  have  taken 
the  place  of  sinners,  so  as  to  die  for  them  and  make 
atonement  for  their  sins. 

3.  If  Christ , as  a created  being , could  have  taken  the  place 
of  sinners , suffering  in  their  stead , there  would  not  have  been 
saving  merit  in  his  sufferings.  We  speak  of  the  different 
orders  of  rational  creatures,  but  they  are  substantially 
one.  As  compared  with  God,  their  diversity  as  to  each 
other  disappears.  If  one  creature  fails  to  meet  his  obliga- 
tions to  God,  how  can  another  creature  atone  for  the  fail- 
ure by  satisfying  the  law  which  has  been  violated  ? " There 
must  be  merit  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  God’s  law.  But 
where  is  merit  to  be  found  in  anything  a creature  can  do? 
When  creatures  have  done  all  required  of  them,  Jesus 
teaches  them  to  say,  u We  are  unprofitable  servants : we 
have  done  that  which  was  our  duty  to  do.”  Luke  xvii.  10. 
On  the  supposition  that  Christ,  as  a mere  creature,  died 
for  sinners,  what  saving  merit  could  there  be  in  his  blood  ? 
When  creatures  deserved  perdition,  could  the  death  of  a 
creature  effect  their  salvation?  The  law  of  God  can  rec- 
ognize merit  in  that  only  which  does  honor  to  its  precep- 
tive and  penal  claims.  Nothing  that  a creature  can  do  o t 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


75 


suffer  can  confer  this  honor.  There  is  an  absence  of 
merit,  and  there  can  be  no  merit  unless  it  is  found  in 
a Being  in  whom  the  divine  element  supplies  it. 

In  view  of  these  considerations  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
Christ,  unless  divine,  could  have  done  nothing  in  the 
matter  of  human  salvation.  It  wTould  not  have  been 
p >ssible  for  him  to  act  in  the  room  of  others ; and  had 
it  been  possible,  he  could  not  have  saved  them.  There 
is  absolutely  no  hope  for  any  sinner  of  Adam’s  race  un- 
less the  Word  who  in  the  beginning  was  with  God  wras 
God.  John  i.  1.  This  eternal  Word,  the  second  person  in 
the  Trinity,  being  above  law,  free  from  the  obligations  of 
creatureship,  was  at  his  own  disposal,  and  could,  if  so  in- 
clined, place  himself  under  a law  enacted  for  the  govern- 
ment of  creatures.  This  the  advocates  of  Christ’s  Deity 
believe  he  has  done,  and  that  the  fact  is  recorded  in  these 
words : “ God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a woman,  made 
under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law.” 
Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  Obeying  the  precepts  of  the  law  in  his  life 
and  suffering  its  penalty  in  his  death,  the  divine  nature  in 
the  twofold  constitution  of  his  person  imparted  infinite 
worth  to  his  obedience  and  sufferings.  The  law  was  mag- 
nified and  made  honorable,  while  a way  was  opened  for 
the  consistent  exercise  of  mercy  in  the  salvation  of  the 
guilty.  This  was  done  if  Christ  was  divine,  but  on  no 
other  supposition.  We  may  now  proceed  to  consider  in 
order  some  of  the  more  prominent  proofs  of  Christ’s 
Deity.  They  are  such  as  these: 

I.  Divine  Names  are  Given  to  Him.  Before  establish- 
ing this  by  direct  quotations  from  the  New  Testament,  I 
will  name  some  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which 
without  doubt  refer  to  God  in  the  supreme  sense  of  the 
term,  and  are  by  the  New  Testament  writers  applied  to 
Christ.  In  Ps.  xlv.  6 it  is  written,  “ Thy  throne,  0 God, 


76 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


is  for  ever  and  ever:  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  is  a right 
sceptre.”  In  Heb.  i.  8 we  read,  “ But  unto  the  Son  he  saith, 
Thy  throne,  0 God,  is  for  ever  and  ever : a sceptre  of  right- 
eousness is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom.”  It  is. worthy  of 
special  notice  that  these  w^ords,  as  used  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  are  found  in  the  midst  of  an  argument  to  prove 
the  pre-eminent  dignity  of  Christ  by  showing  his  superior- 
ity to  angels.  It  would  be  difficult  to  explain  why  the  in- 
spired writer  wished  to  prove  Christ’s  superiority  to  angels 
if  he  did  not  intend  to  teach  his  equality  with  God.  It 
is  indisputable  that  the  Father  in  addressing  the  Son  ap- 
plies to  him  the  term  God  : “ Th}^  throne,  0 God.” 

Isaiah  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  his  prophecy  records  a 
wonderful  vision,  in  which  he  saw  the  Lord  “ high  and 
lifted  up,  and  his  train  filled  the  temple.”  He  saw  the 
six-winged  seraphim,  and  heard  them  cry  with  rever- 
ential awe,  “ Ifoly,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of  hosts:  the 
whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory.”  No  one  will  deny  that 
the  Lord  Jehovah  of  hosts  is  the  supreme  God.  But  in  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  John  we  are  referred  to 
this  vision  of  the  prophet ; and  the  evangelist,  with  Christ 
as  the  theme  of  his  discourse,  says,  “ These  things  said  Esa- 
ias,  when  he  saw  his  glory  and  spake  of  him.”  John  xii. 
41.  Nothing  is  plainer  than  that  Isaiah,  in  seeing  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  saw  the  glory  of  Christ ; 
and  why?  Because  Christ  is  Jehovah  of  hosts. 

We  have  in  Isaiah  xl.  3 these  words  : “ The  voice  of 
him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  make  straight  in  the  desert  a highway  for  our 
God.”  John  the  Baptist  said  of  himself,  u I am  the  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wulderness,  Make  straight  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  as  said  the  prophet  Esaias.”  John  i.  23.  As  the 
harbinger  of  Christ,  John  the  Baptist  was  his  messenger, 
as  we  learn  from  Mai.  iii.  1 ; Mark  i.  2,  3,  and  came  to  pre- 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


77 


pare  his  way.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  way  of  the  Lord 
is  the  way  of  Jehovah,  and  in  the  New  Testament  the  way 
of  the  Lord  is  the  way  of  Jesus.  The  conclusion  is  irre- 
sistible that  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  Je- 
ll /vah-Jesus  of  the  New  Testament. 

I now  proceed  to  quote  from  the  New  Testament  a 
number  of  passages  which  obviously  teach  the  Deity  of 
Christ.  It  is  natural  to  refer  first  to  John  i.  1,  2 : “ In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  be- 
ginning with  God.”  That  by  the  Word  is  meant  the 
Being  who  became  incarnate,  we  are  taught  in  the 
fourteenth  verse  of  the  same  chapter:  “And  the  Word 
was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us.”  The  words  “ In 
the  beginning  ” no  doubt  mean  what  they  do  in  Gen.  i.  1. 
The  reference  is  to  the  period  at  which  “ God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth.”  The  Word  was  then  with  him, 
and  as  God  existed  before  he  performed  the  work  of  crea- 
tion, and  as  the  Word  was  with  him,  it  follows  that  the 
Word  existed  before  creation,  which  is  equivalent  to  eter- 
nity of  being.  Jesus,  therefore,  in  one  place  refers  to  the 
glor}”  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was. 
John  xvii.  5.  “ The  Word  was  God  ” is  the  declaration 

to  which  special  attention  should  be  called,  and  which 
deserves  the  strongest  emphasis.  What  could  be  more 
unequivocal  ? How  could  testimony  in  favor  of  Christ’s 
Deity  be  more  positive? 

The  language  of  Thomas  in  John  xx.  28  deserves  con- 
sideration. This  apostle  had  expressed  his  incredulity  in 
terms  unreasonably  strong,  but  when  Jesus  presented  in- 
fallible proofs  of  his  resurrection  Thomas  said,  “ My  Lord 
and  my  God  !”  I am  aware  that  some  who  deny  Christ’s 
divinity  insist  that  the  words  of  Thomas  are  those  of 
exclamatory  surprise,  and  do  not  attribute  Lordship  and 


78 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


Deity  to  Christ.  To  adopt  this  view  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  believe  that  the  apostle  expressed  his  surprise  in  a 
very  irreverent,  not  to  say  blasphemous,  manner.  What- 
ever surprise  Thomas  felt,  his  words  were  declarative  of 
his  faith  in  Christ  as  his  Lord  and  his  God,  and  the 
avowal  of  his  faith  was  pleasing  to  Christ.  It  is  manliest 
that  Jesus  did  not  disclaim  the  titles  that  Thomas  gave 
him,  but  recognized  their  propriety.  He  is,  then,  Lord 
and  God. 

In  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans,  Paul  refers  to  the 
advantages  ehjoyed  by  the  Israelites,  “ of  whom,  as  con- 
cerning the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed 
for  ever.”  v.  5.  The  words  “ as  concerning  the  flesh,” 
though  they  almost  seem  to  have  been  thrown  in  inci- 
dentally, are  very  significant.  They  teach  the  descent  of 
Christ,  how  he  came,  as  to  his  human  nature ; but  the 
language  which  follows  shows  him  to  be  divine,  for  he 
“is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.”  It  can  only  be  said 
of  a Divine  Being  that  he  is  over  all  f and  it  is  therefore 
perfectly  natural  that  the  term  God  should  be  applied 
to  him  “who  is  over  all.” 

In  1 Tim.  iii.  16  occurs  the  expression,  “ God  was  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh.”  It  is  the  part  of  candor  to  say  that  the 
correctness  of  this  translation  is  disputed.  The  two 
prominent  views  of  the  passage  are  these  : Some  -say  that 
the  authority  of  ancient  manuscripts  justifies  the  Com- 
mon Version,  while  others  insist  that  the  best  manusciipt 
authority  requires  the  substitution  of  who  in  the  place  of 
God . Dr.  Noyes,  taking  the  latter  view,  translates,  as  fol- 
lows : “ And  confessedly  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness 
in  him  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh.”  He  says  in  a 
note  that  “ the  words  ‘ in  him  5 are  not  in  the  Greek,  but 
seem  to  be  implied  in  the  context.”  It  is  evident,  then, 
whichever  view  we  take,  that  there  was  a manifestation 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


79 


in  the  flesh  and  the  manifestation  of  a being.  Mr.  Spur- 
geon, in  his  sermon  on  this  verse  entitled  “ The  Hexapla 
of  Mystery,”  has  placed  the  matter  in  controversy  in  so 
clear  a light  that  any  one  can  understand  it.  He  says : 
‘‘There  is  very  little  occasion  for  fighting  about  this 
matter,  for  if  the  text  does  not  say  ‘ God  was  manifest  in 
the  flesh,’  who  does  it  say  was  manifest  in  the  flesh  ? 
Either  a man,  or  an  angel,  or  a devil.  Does  it  tell  us  that 
a man  was  manifest  in  the  flesh  ? Assuredly  that  cannot 
be  its  teaching,  for  every  man  is  manifest  in  the  flesh,  and 
there  is  no  sense  whatever  in  making  such*a  statement 
concerning  any  mere  man,  and  then  calling  it  a mystery. 
Was  it  an  angel,  then  ? But  what  angel  was  ever  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh  ? And  if  he  were,  would  it  be  at  all  a mys 
tery  that  he  should  be  ‘ seen  of  angels  ’ ? Is  it  a wTonder 
for  an  angel  to  see  an  angel  ? Can  it  be  that  the  devil 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh?  If  so,  he  has  been  ‘received 
up  into  glory,’  which,  let  us  hope,  is  not  the  case.  Well, 
if  it  was  neither  a man,  nor  an  angel,  nor  a devil,  wTho 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  surely  he  must  have  been 
God  ; and  so,  if  the  word  be  not  there,  the  sense  must  be 
there,  or  else  nonsense.  We  believe  that  if  criticism 
should  grind  the  text  in  a mill,  it  would  get  out  of  it  no 
more  and  no  less  than  the  sense  expressed  by  our  grand 
old  version : God  himself  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.” 
To  this  striking  interpretation  of  Mr.  Spurgeon  not  a 
word  needs  to  be  added,  and  every  objection  will  assail 
it  in  vain. 

I refer  to  one  passage  more  in  which  Christ  is  called 
God  : “And  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life.” 
1 John  v.  20.  Here  Christ  is  not  only  designated  God, 
but  the  true  God.  As  there  can  be  but  one  true  God,  the 
epithet  true , in  its  application  to  Christ,  makes  him  one 


80 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


in  essence  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  it 
Lays  the  axe  at  the  root  of  polytheism  and  shows  all  idol 
gods  to  be  vanity.  The  phrase  “ eternal  life  ” claims  atten- 
tion. If  full  force  is  given  to  the  article  in  the  original, 
we  must  read,  “ This  is  the  true  God,  and  the  eternal  life.” 
In  this  case  there  would  be  a repetition  of  the  idea  in 
chapter  i.  2:  “ For  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have 
seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  show  unto  you  that  eternal 
life,  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto 
us.”  Here  eternity  of  life  or  being  is  ascribed  to  Christ, 
and  he  must  be  God.  Or  if  we  take  the  words  as  we  have 
them,  without  the  force  of  the  article — “This  is  the  true 
God,  and  eternal  life” — then  we  must  understand  the  be- 
loved disciple  to  teach,  by  a figure  of  speech,  that  Christ 
is  the  Author  of  eternal  life.  If  so,  he  is  divine,  for  God 
alone  can  give  eternal  life  to  creatures.  The  argument 
from  the  ascription  of  divine  names  to  Christ  in  favor 
of  his  Deity  is  by  no  means  exhausted,  but  I pursue  it 
no  further.  The  Scriptures  call  him  God,  and  he  is  God. 

II.  Divine  Attributes  Belong  to  Christ.  The  pre- 
ceding argument  derives  its  power  from  the  fact  that 
names  which  in  the  highest  sense  are  applied  to  God  are 
also  applied  to  Christ.  The  force  of  the  present  argument 
will  be  seen  in  Christ’s  possession  of  attributes  unques- 
tionably divine.  I shall  not  attempt  to  give  an  exhaus- 
tive catalogue  of  these  attributes,  but  merely  name  the 
following  conspicuous  ones : 

1.  Eternity.  That  the  Word,  who  in  the  beginning  was 
with  God,  had  an  eternal  existence  is  proved  by  the 
following  Scripture:  “ But  thou,  Bethlehem-Ephratah, 
though  thou  be  little  among  the  thousands  of  Judah, 
yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be 
ru.er  in  Israel;  wThose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old, 
from  everlasting.”  Mic.  v.  2.  That  this  langvage  refers 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


81 


to  Chr.st  is  manifest  from  Matt.  ii.  6.  It  will  be  observed 
that  while  the  “ ruler  in  Israel  ” was  to  come  out  of 
Bethlehem — that  is,  be  born  there — it  is  said  that  his 
“ goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting.” 
While  the  passage  contains  a clear  intimation  of  the  two- 
fold constitution  of  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  it  is  here 
quoted  to  showT  that  he  who  was  born  in  Bethlehem  had  ex- 
isted from  eternity  : “ His  goings  forth  had  been  from  ever- 
lasting.” When  it  is  said  in  Psalm  xc.  2,  “ From  ever- 
lasting to  everlasting  thou  art  God,”  it  is  universally 
understood  that  God  has  existed  from  eternity.  Why, 
then,  do  not  the  words  “ from  everlasting,”  when  applied 
to  the  Lord  Jesus,  mean  the  same  thing?  The}  must 
have  the  same  meaning. 

I refer  to  one  other  passage  in  proof  of  the  eten  ity  of 
Christ’s  existence.  It  is  found  in  John  xvii.  5,  and  has 
been  mentioned  in  another  connection : “ And  now,  0 
Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the 
glory  which  I had  with  thee  before  the  world  was.”  The 
words  “ before  the  world  was  ” are  identical  in  import 
with  “before  the  foundation  of  the  world,”  as  in  Eph.  i. 
4.  Bringing  the  world  into  existence  is  referred  to  as 
one  of  the  creative  acts  of  divine  power,  and  there  is  no 
intimation  that  it  was  subsequent  to  any  other  creative 
act.  Between  the  remotest  depths  of  eternity  and  the 
creation  of  the  world  there  is  no  epoch  from  which  to 
date,  and  therefore  whatever  was  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world  was  eternal.  “ Glory  before  the  world  was  ” 
must  have  been  eternal  glory,  and  as  the  glory  of  a being 
implies  his  existence,  his  eternal  glory  implies  his  eternal 
existence.  That  Christ  existed  “ before  the  world  was  ” 
is  a strong  argument  for  his  eternity ; and  if  the  posses- 
sion of  unbeginning  existence  is  not  proof  of  Deity,  there 
is  no  proof  of  anything. 


82 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


2.  Om  A science . To  know  all  things  is  a divine  prerog- 
ative. It  is  God  who  “ searches  all  hearts  and  under- 
stands all  the  imaginations  of  the  thoughts.”  1 Chrom 
xxviii.  9.  He  is  referred  to  in  Acts  xv.  8 as  “ knowing 
the  hearts” — literally,  “ the  heart-knower ;”  and  in  1 John 
iii.  20  he  is  said  to  “ know  all  things.”  If  these  things 
are  true  of  God  and  also  of  Christ,  it  follows  that  Christ 
is  God.  Peter  said  to  Jesus,  “Lord,  thou  knowest  all 
things;  thou  knowest  that  I love  thee”  (John  xxi.  17); 
and  if  in  Acts  i.  24  the  term  Lord,  as  in  most  places  in 
the  New  Testament,  refers  to  Christ,  he  is  designated 
“heart-knower.”  However  this  may  be,  we  know  that 
it  is  he  who  in  Rev.  ii.  23  says,  “And  all  the  churches 
shall  know  that  I am  he  which  searcheth  the  reins  and 
hearts.”  Probably  the  strongest  proof  of  Christ’s  omnis- 
cience is  to  be  found  in  his  own  words  in  Matt.  xi.  27 : 
“No  man  knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father;  neither 
knoweth  any  man  the  Father,  save  the  Son,”  A literal 
translation  requires  the  substitution  of  one  for  man — no 
one,  any  one.  Tt  is  not  Only  said  that  man  does  not  pos- 
sess the  knowledge  referred  to,  but  that  no  one,  in  any 
class  of  rational  beings,  possesses  it.  The  knowledge  is 
peculiarly  divine,  and  as  Christ  is  in  possession  of  it  in 
common  with  the  Father,  the  Deity  of  the  Son  is  as 
undeniable  as  that  of  the  Father. 

3.  Omnipresence.  In  the  chapter  on  the  attributes  of 
God  it  was  shown  in  the  light  of  Ps.  cxxxix.  7-12  and 
other  Scriptures  that  God  is  everywhere.  Omnipres- 
ence is  obviously  a divine  perfection.  If,  then,  this 
perfection  belongs  to  Christ,  his  Deity  is  unquestionable. 
What  did  he  himself  say  in  his  conversation  with  Nico- 
demus? — “No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he 
that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  which 
is  i r heaven.”  John  iii.  13.  Here  we  are  plainly  taught 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


83 


that  he  who  came  down  from  heaven  was  in  heaven. 
The  only  explanation  is,  that  while  his  bodily  presence 
was  on  earth  his  essential  presence  was  in  heaven. 
Christ  also  said,  “ For  where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  in  my  name,  there  am  I in  the  midst  of  them  ” 
Matt,  xviii.  20. 

It  is  quite  observable  that  Jesus  does  not  refer  to 
laige  numbers  of  his  disciples,  but  to  two  or  tfc:ee  met 
in  his  name.  However  numerous  and  however  widely 
separated  these  little  companies  may  be,  the  Saviour’s 
presence  is  with  them  all.  If  it  is  said  that  his  gracious 
presence  is  specially  meant,  I grant  it,  but  his  gracious 
presence  wherever  two  or  three  meet  is  possible  only 
because  he  is  omnipresent.  For  the  same  reason  his 
words  are  true : u Lo,  I am  with  you  alway,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world.”  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  His  presence 
everywhere  is  of  necessity  implied.  The  omnipresence 
of  Christ  is  proof  of  his  Deity. 

4.  Omnipotence.  If  omniscience  and  omnipresence  are 
divine  attributes,  it  is  certain  that  omnipotence  must 
be  classed  among  the  perfections  of  God.  If,  therefore, 
it  can  be  shown  that  Christ  possesses  almighty  power, 
there  will  be  another  argument  in  support  of  his  divin- 
ity, It  is  manifest  that  in  the  exercise  of  power  he 
claimed  equality  with  God  the  Father.  Referring  to  the 
Father,  he  said,  “ For  what  things  soever  he  doeth,  these 
also  doeth  the  Son  likewise.”  Prophecy  spoke  of  him 
as  “ the  mighty  Go. I.”  Isa.  ix.  6.  Even  while  on  earth, 
in  the  days  of  his  humiliation,  his  superhuman  power 
was  recognized.  Winds  and  waves  obeyed  him,  disease 
loosed  its  grasp  at  his  bidding,  while  death  and  the 
grave  were  in  haste  at  his  word  to  yield  up  their  prey. 
So  great  and  so  beneficent  is  the  power  of  Christ,  that 
Paul  considered  it  a special  favor  for  this  power  to  rest 


84 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


on  him,  and  he  rejoiced  in  his  ability  to  do  all  things 
through  Christ  strengthening  him.  Surety  Christ  is 
almighty,  and  he  is  therefore  divine. 

5.  Immutability . When  God  says,  “ I am  the  Lord,  I 
change  not  ” (Mai.  iii.  6),  the  form  of  expression  denotes  that 
his  unchangeableness  is  proof  of  his  divinity.  This  being 
the  case,  it  must  be  admitted  that,  if  Christ  is  immuta- 
ble, he  is  God.  In  Heb.  i.  10-12,  Christ  seems  evidently 
referred  to  as  the  Maker  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
which  are  to  perish  and  be  changed ; but  it  is  said, 
“ Thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not  fail.”  In 
the  last  chapter  of  the  same  Epistle  we  have  the  words, 
“ Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  for 
ever.”  v.  8.  Changes  belong  to  things  and  creatures. 
Immutability  belongs  to  God  alone,  and  Jesus  Christ 
is  invariably  the  same,  because  he  is  God. 

Thus  does  the  Deity  of  Christ  appear  from  the  ascrip- 
tion of  divine  attributes  to  him. 

III.  Christ  is  Represented  as.  performing  Divine 
Works.  No  physical  act  displays  omnipotence  more 
strikingly  than  creation.  The  production  of  something 
out  of  nothing  is  everywhere  in  the  Scriptures  considered 
the  exclusive  work  of  God.  I concede,  therefore,  that  if 
Christ  has  not  exerted  creative  power,  one  of  the  strongest, 
if  not  the  strongest,  proofs  of  his  Deity  is  wanting.  . But 
what  say  the  Scriptures? — “All  things  were  made  by  him; 
and  without  him  was  not  anything  made  that  w\as  made.” 
John  i.  3.  I do  not  see  how  the  universal  and  the  par- 
ticular can  be  more  fully  expressed  than  in  this  verse. 
“ All  things  were  made  by  him  ” — this  is  the  universal ; 
“without  him  was  not  anything  [literally,  one  thing] 
made” — this  is  the  particular.  There  is  nothing  that 
rises  above  “ all  things  ” and  there  is  nothing  that  falls 
below  the  “one  thing,”  Every  created  object  is  embraced 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


85 


in  this  inspired  account  of  creation,  and  the  omnipotent 
work  is  ascribed  to  Christ.  We  have  similar  language  in 
Col.  i.  16:  “For  by  him  were  all  things  created,  that  are 
in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible, 
whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities, 
or  powers  : all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him.’5 
Here,  too,  the  existence  of  all  things  is  ascribed  to  the 
creative  power  of  Christ.  The  statement  of  the  apostle  is 
so  positive  and  so  forcible  that  all  words  of  paraphrase 
would  weaken  it.  I therefore  leave  it  without  comment. 
Nor  shall  I quote  other  Scriptures  to  prove  that  the  work 
of  creation  is  attributed  to  Christ.  The  two  passages  now 
before  the  reader  are  amply  sufficient.  Who  but  a Divine 
Being  has  created  all  things  ? Christ  is  therefore  God. 

The  work  of  preservation  is  also  the  work  of  Christ. 
Of  him  it  is  said,  “ And  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by 
him  all  things  consist.”  Col.  i.  17.  Being  before  all 
things,  he  existed  prior  to  the  creation  of  all  things  by 
his  power,  and  since  their  creation  he  has  preserved  them 
by  the  same  power.  “ All  things  consist  ” — that  is,  they 
stand  together,  are  kept  in  place — by  him  who  made  them. 
They  would  fall  to  pieces,  there  would  be  disintegration, 
if  Christ  were  not  Conserver  as  well  as  Creator.  In 
Heb.  i.  3 are  these  words : “ Upholding  all  things  by  the 
word  of  his  power.”  Here  the  kindred  idea  of  sustaining 
is  presented.  The  imagery  employed  supposes  the  uni- 
verse to  rest  on  the  word  of  Christ’s  power,  and  he  is  in- 
finitely able  to  uphold  the  “ all  things  ” he  has  created. 
Does  not  his  work  of  providence  prove  his  Deity  ? 

The  resurrection  of  the  dead  will  be  a glorious  display 
of  the  power  of  God.  No  sane  mind  can  suppose  that 
anything  but  omnipotence  can  reanimate  the  dust  of  the 
countless  millions  in  the  empire  of  the  grave.  Indeed, 
some  in  apostolic  times  seem  to  have  thought  it  “ incred- 


86 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


ible  that  God  should  raise  the  dead.”  Certainly,  no  one 
supposed  that  an}^  being  but  God  could  perform  such 
a work.  There  is,  however,  a special  ascription  of  this 
work  to  Christ.  He  says  himself,  “ The  hour  is-  coming 
in  thj  which  all  that  are  in  the  grave  shall  hear  his 
voice,  and  shall  come  forth.”  John  v.  28,  29.  What 
amazing  power  will  this  be,  accompanying  the  voice  of 
•.he  Son  of  God,  and  causing  all  the  dead  to  hear  that 
voice!  They  will  do  more:  “They  will  come  forth.” 
These  are  the  words  of  “ the  faithful  and  true  Witness.5 
Paul  says  of  Christ,  “ Who  shall  change  our  vile  body, 
that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  ac- 
cording to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subdue 
all  things  unto  himself.”  Phil.  iii.  21.  This  passage  refers 
to  the  resurrection  of  the  saints,  and  teaches  three  things : 
that  the  vile  body — literally,  the  body  of  our  humiliation — 
is  to  be  changed ; that  it  is  to  be  conformed  to  the  glorious 
body  of  Christ ; and  that  this  is  to  be  done  by  the  power 
of  Christ — a power  so  great  that  in  its  exercise  he  is  able 
to  subdue  all  things.  It  is  needless  to  quote  further  to 
show  that  Jesus  will  raise  the  dead.  Now,  I ask  if  divine 
works — creation,  preservation,  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead — are  not  ascribed  to  Christ,  and  do  they  not  prove 
his  Deity?  But  there  is  other  proof. 

IV.  Christ  is  the  Object  of  Worship.  What  is  wor- 
ship? When  our  translation  of  the  Bible  was  made  the 
term  was  used  in  two  senses:  in  the  lower  sense  of  the 
word  it  meant  civil  respect  and  deference,  as  in  Luke  x;v« 
10:  “Then  shalt  thou  have  worship  in  the  presence  of 
them  that  sit  at  meat  with  thee.55  The  term  in  this  sense 
is  now  obsolete,  but  it  is  used  in  its  highest  scriptural 
sense  to  denote  adoration  paid  to  God  because  he  is  God. 
We  have  the  authority  of  Jesus  himself  on  this  point.  In 
repelling  one  of  Satan’s  temptations  he  said,  “ For  it  is 


THE  DETTY  OE  CHRIST. 


87 


written,  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him 
only  shalt  thou  serve.”  Matt.  iv.  10.  Here  we  are  taught 
that  worship  belongs  exclusively  to  God.  If,  then,  it  can 
be  shown  that,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  object  of  worship,  the  doctrine  of  his  Deity  will  bo 
established.  In  John  v.  23  it  is  written,  “That  all  men 
should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.” 
No  one  will  deny  that  supreme  honor  is  claimed  for  the 
Father,  and  equal  honor  is  claimed  for  the  Son.  This 
honor  surely  implies  worship.  The  first  Christians  were 
designated  as  those  who  called  on  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
Paul  wrote,  “ Unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth, 
to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be 
saints,  with  all  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  both  theirs  and  ours.”  1 Cor.  i.  2. 
To  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  to  invoke  his  name, 
and  this  implies  prayer,  whatever  else  it  may  imply. 
Prayer  is  an  act  of  worship.  Nor  is  this  all.  Calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  inseparably  connected 
with  salvation.  “ For  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved.”  Rom.  x.  13.  It  is 
here  taken  for  granted  that  the  Lord  has  power  to  save. 
I need  not  say  that  it  requires  the  power  of  God  to  save. 
The  Lord  Jesus  must  be  God.  Not  only  did  the  first 
Christians  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  in  their  wor- 
ship and  service  during  life,  but  in  death  they  invoked 
his  name  and  committed  their  departing  spirits  into  his 
hands.  Of  the  latter  truth,  Stephen  is  the  most  conspicu- 
ous illustration  : “ And  they  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon 
and  saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.”  Acts  vii.  59. 
This  is  the  correct  translation.  There  is  no  .word  in  the 
Greek  text  corresponding  to  God,  and  there  is  no  pause 
between  the  calling  upon  and  the  saying.  The  Redeemer 
was  invoked,  and  the  words  of  invocation  were,  “Lord 


88 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.”  This  was  the  first  Christian 
martyr.  With  eternity  just  before  him  he  called  on  his 
Lord,  commending  to  him  the  spirit  struggling  to  escape 
from  the  murdered  body.  Did  Stephen  labor  under  a 
mistake  in  believing  that  Jesus,  because  divine,  was  able 
\ ) receive  his  disembodied  spirit?  Strange  time  to  make 
a mistake  when  he  saw  the  glory  of  God  shining  brighter 
than  ten  thousand  suns ! There  was  no  mistake.  The 
dying  martyr  recognized  the  Deity  of  his  Lord. 

In  Heb.  i.  6 it  is  said,  “ And  let  all  the  angels  of  God 
worship  him.”  This  is  the  command  of  the  eternal  Fa- 
ther— a command  implying  the  divinity  of  the  Son  and 
the  equality  of  his  claims  to  angelic  adoration.  If  the 
Lord  Jesus  is  worshipped  by  saints  and  angels,  is  not  this 
a conclusive  proof  of  his  Deity?  Saints  on  earth  worship 
him,  and  saints  in  heaven  sing  a new  song,  saying,  “ Thou 
art  worthy ; ...  for  thou  wast  slain  and  hast  redeemed 
us  to  God  by  thy  blood.”  Rev.  v.  9.  John  heard  this  ex- 
alted song,  and  then  he  heard  the  angels,  “ and  the  num- 
ber of  them  was  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand,  and 
thousands  of  thousands,  saying  with  a loud  voice,  Worth} 
is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  to  receive  power,  and  riches, 
and  wTisdom,  and  strength,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and 
blessing.”  Rev.  v.  12.  It  will  be  observed  that  while  the 
angels  make  no  reference  to  personal  redemption,  as  do 
the  saints,  they  fully  recognize  the  worthiness  of  the 
Lamb  slain.  Christ  is  worshipped  by  saints  and  angels, 
cn  earth  and  in  heaven.  He  accepts  the  worship.  Peter 
wras  utterly  unwilling  to  receive  worship  frcm  Cornelius, 
but  raised  him  up  from  his  prostrate  position,  “ Saying, 
Stand  up;  I myself  also  am  a man.”  Acts  x.  26.  Paul 
and  Barnabas  “rent  their  clothes  ” at  the  very  intimation 
that  sacrifices  were  to  be  offered  to  them.  Acts  xiv.  14,  18.  ' 
When  John  was  so  impressed  by  the  glory  of  the  angel 


THE  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


89 


who  made  known  to  him  the  wonderful  things  which  he 
Baw  that  he  fell  down  to  worship,  mistaking  the  angel 
for  the  Lord  of  angels,  the  heavenly  messenger  rebuked 
him/  saying,  “See  thou  do  it  not;  . . . worship  God.” 
Rev.  xxii.  9.  Thus  we  see  that  apostles  on  earth  would 
not  receive  worship,  nor  would  angels  in  heaven.  Bui 
Jesus  accepted  worship  on  earth  and  in  heaven.  Why? 
Because  he  knew  himself  to  be  the  proper  object  of  ado- 
ration. This  he  could  not  know  without  a consciousness 
of  Deity.  Christ  is  God. 

In  closing  this  chapter  it  is  proper  to  notice  a strange 
declaration,  sometimes  made  by  those  who  deny  the  su- 
preme divinity  of  Christ.  It  is  in  substance  this : That, 
though  Jesus  is  not  God,  he  is  the  best  man  the  world 
ever  saw.  Nothing  can  be  further  from  the  truth  than 
such  a statement.  The  alternative  is  not  that  Jesus  is 
God  or  the  best  of  men.  No ! the  alternative  is  that 
Jesus  is  God  or  the  worst  of  men.  If  he  was  not  God,  he 
was  such  an  impostor,  such  a blasphemer,  as  the  world 
never  saw.  He  claimed  for  himself  divine  honors  and 
divine  worship.  lie  said,  “ He  that  loveth  father  or 
mother  more  than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me;  and  he  that 
loveth  son  or  daughter  more  than  me  is  not  worthy  of 
me  ” (Matt.  x.  37) ; “ If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate 
not  his  father  and  mother  and  wife  and  children  and 
brothers  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot 
be  my  disciple.”  Luke  xiv.  26.  It  is  proper  to  say  that  in 
the  latter  passage  the  word  “ hate  ” means  to  love  less,  and 
thu  spirit  of  both  passages  is  that  love  to  Christ  must  be 
superior  to  that  exercised  in  any  of  the  relations  of  life. 
Think  of  it ! Here  is  a man — if  Jesus  is  only  a man — 
who  requires  the  husband  to  love  him  more  thari  he  does 
his  wife,  and  the  wife  to  love  him  more  than  she  does  her 
husband  ; who  requires  parents  and  children  to  love  him 
8 * 


90 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


more  than  they  love  one  another,  and  who  requires  every* 
body  to  love  him  more  than  life  itself!  On  the  supposi- 
tion that  Jesus  is  a mere  man,  there  is  no  language  that 
can  define  the  presumption  that  presents  such  claims. 
He  gives  orders  that  in  baptism  his  name  shall  be  used 
between  that  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; that 
his  death  shall  be  commemorated  till  the  end  of  the 
world ; that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  shall  be 
preached  through  him ; and  says  that  he  will  come  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven  on  the  last  day,  raise  the  dead,  judge  the 
world,  welcome  the  righteous  into  the  kingdom  of  glory, 
consign  the  wicked  to  eternal  perdition,  and  wTill  then  be 
the  light  and  the  joy  of  the  New  Jerusalem.  Imagine 
prophet  or  apostle  as  asserting  such  claims  and  saying 
such  things:  Would  not  the  presumption  and  the  blas- 
phemy be  intolerable  ? They  are  just  as  intolerable  in  the 
case  of  Jesus  Christ  if  he  is  not’  divine. 

I present  these  views  to  show  how  absurd  it  is  to  deny 
the  Deity  of  Christ  and  insist  that  the  world  never  saw  so 
good  a man.  No,  he  is  the  wTorst  of  men  if  nothing  more 
than  man.  But  he  is  God.  This  is  the  glory  of  the  sys- 
tem of  Christianity,  that  its  Author  is  divine.  His  Deity 
is- essential  to  the  value  of  his  atoning  sacrifice — essential 
to  his  ability  to  save.  In  view  of  the  proofs  of  his  di- 
vinity presented  in  this  chapter,  every  Christian  may  say 
with  Thomas,  “My  Lord  and. my  God!”  and  with  Paul, 
“ I know  whom  I have  believed,  and  am  persuaded  that 
lie  is  able  to  keep  that  which  I have  committed  unto 
him ;”  and  in  the  dying  hour  the  words  of  Stephen  may 
well  come  into  the  heart  and  find  expression  through  the 
q livering  lips : “ Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.” 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY  OF  THE  HOL  Y 

SPIRIT. 

The  subject  discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter  may  be 
considered  in  some  of  its  aspects  the  most  important  and 
vital  in  the  system  of  theology.  It  is  therefore  wise  to 
establish  by  conclusive  proofs  the  Deity  of  Christ.  When 
this  is  done,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  usually  accepted 
without  hesitation,  while  personality  and  divinity  are  ac- 
corded to  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  being  the  case,  it  will  be 
unnecessary  for  the  subject  of  this  chapter  to  receive  a 
very  elaborate  investigation,  but  it  should  by  no  means 
be  passed  over.  It  divides  itself  into  two  parts : 

I.  The  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  By  this  is 
meant  that  the  Spirit  is  a person,  not  a mere  energy  or  in- 
fluence or  operation,  but  an  intelligent  person.  What  does 
Jesus  say? — “And  I will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 
for  ever  “But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost j 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach 
you  all  things.”  John  xiv.  16.  26.  The  Comforter  here 
promised  is  said  to  be  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  plain 
meaning  of  the  term  is,  one  who  administers  comfort. 
This  is  clearly  suggestive  of  personality ; but  if  stronger 
proof  is"  required,  it  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  Spirit  is 
said  to  teach.  Surely  the  office  of  teacher  is  inseparable 
from  personality.  When  it  is  said  of  the  Spirit,  “ He 


92 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


shall  teach  you  all  things,”  it  is  virtually  declared  that  he 
is  a person.  The  baptismal  commission  furnishes  as 
strong  proof  of  die  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  of 
that  if  the  Father  and  of  the  Son.  “ Baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  The  phrase  “in  the  name”  usually  means  “by 
authority  of,”  and  if  this  is  its  meaning  here,  the  authority 
of  the  Spirit  is  equal  to  that  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son, 
and  the  Spirit  must  be  a person.  But  this  is  not  the  mean- 
ing of  “ in  the  name  ” in  the  commission.  Baptism  is  ad- 
ministered by  authority  of  the  Son,  but,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
“into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;”  that  is,  there  is  an  avowal  of  allegiance 
and  consecration  to  the  throe  persons  of  the  Godhead  ; 
there  is  a profession  of  fellowship  with  God  in  his  three- 
fold unity.  The  personality  of  the  Spirit  is  undoubtedly 
implied,  for  it  would  be  absurd  to  associate  an  influence 
or  energy  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  The  Spirit  has  equal  personality  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  To  confirm  the  view  now  presented, 
I may  say  that  the  Spirit  is  referred  to  as  doing  what  a 
personal  agent  alone  can  do.  He  is  said  to  “ testify  ” of 
Christ,  to  “glorify”  him,  to  make  “intercession  for  the 
saints,”  to  distribute  gifts  “ as  he  will,”  to  “ seal  unto  the 
day  of  redemption.”  John  xv.  26  ; xvi.  14  ; Rom.  viii.  27  ; 
1 Cor.  xii.  11 ; Eph.  iv.  30.  The  acts  mentioned  in  these 
passages  are  personal  acts.  It  requires  a person  to  “ tes- 
tify,”  to  “ glorify,”  to  “ intercede,”  to  “ will,”  and  to  “seal.” 
It  is  morally  certain  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a Person. 

II  The  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Not  more  evi- 
dent is  the  personality  than  the  divinity  of  the  Holy 
Spiri  This  will  appear  in  view  of  such  facts  as  these : 

1.  He  is  called  God.  4 But  Peter  said,  Ananias,  why 
hath  Satan  filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 


HOLY  SPIRIT'S  PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY . 93 


to  keep  back  part  of  the  price  of  the  land?  . . . Thou 
hast  not  lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God.”  Acts  v.  3,  4.  Here 
it  is  plain  that  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  lie  to  God. 
But  why  is  it  so  ? Because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God.  The 
charge  which  Peter  interrogatively  makes  is,  that  Ananias 
had  lied  to  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  to  show  the  greatness  of 
the  sin  he  said  it  was  lying  to  God,  the  term  God  being 
no  doubt  better  understood  by  the  guilty  man  than  the 
phrase  Holy  Spirit. 

“ Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God,  and  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you?”  1 Cor.  iii.  16.  The 
temple  at  Jerusalem  was  God’s  house,  and  he  was  said  to 
dwell  there.  Availing  himself  of  this  form  of  speech, 
Paul  told  the  members  of  the  Corinthian  church  that 
they  were  the  temple  of  God — that  is,  his  habitation. 
What  else  does  he  say? — “ Know  ye  not  that  your  body 
is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost?”  1 Cor.  vi.  19.  We 
have,  therefore,  in  the  same  Epistle  the  expressions  “ tem- 
ple of  God”  and  “temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost”  applied  to 
the  same  church.  If  a church  or  an  individual  Chris- 
tian is  the  temple  of  God  and  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  it  must  be  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God. 

2.  Divine  perfections  are  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit . if 
these  perfections,  when  ascribed  to  Christ,  prove  his 
Deity,  they  also,  when  ascribed  to  the  Spirit,  prove  hh? 
Deity.  That  the  Spirit  is  represented  as  eternal,  omnis- 
cient, omnipresent,  and  omnipotent  is  manifest  from  the 
following  passages : “ How  much  more  shall  the  blood  of 
Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  with- 
out spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works 
to  serve  the  living  God  ?”  Pleb.  ix.  14.  “ But  God  hath  re- 
vealed them  to  us  by  his  Spirit:  for  the  Spirit  searcheth 
all  things,  yea,  the  deep  things  of  God.”  1 Cor.  ii.  10. 
c< Whither  shall  I go  from  thy  Spirit?  or  whither  shall  I 


94 


' CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


flee  fiom  thy  presence?”  Ps.  cxxxix.  7.  “ Being  put  to 

death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit.”  “He 
that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken 
your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you.” 
1 Pet.  iii.  18;  Rom.  viii.  11.  As  the  attributes  of  eternity, 
omniscience,  omnipresence,  and  omnipotence  belong  in- 
alienably to  God,  and  as  they  are  ascribed  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that  he  is  God. 

3.  Divine  operations  are  ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  The  most 
prominent  of  these  operations  are  connected  with  crea- 
tion and  the  working  of  miracles.  “ The  earth  was  with- 
out form  and  void;  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of 
the  deep.  And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face 
of  the  waters.”  Gen.  i.  2.  Order  and  beauty  were  brought 
out  of  chaotic  darkness  by  the  Spirit;  and  in  Job  xxvi. 
13,  we  read,  “ By  his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heav- 
ens.” These  two  passages  sufficiently  show  the  Spirit’s 
connection  with  the  work  of  creation,  and  by  consequence 
his  Deity.  As  to  miracles,  it  is  written,  “ But  if  I cast 
out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  come  unto  you.”  “For  to  one  is  given,  vy  che  Spirit, 
the  word  of  wisdom;  ...  to  another  the  gifts  of  heal- 
ing by  the  same  Spirit;  to  another  the  working  of  mira- 
cles.” Matt.  xii.  28  ; 1 Cor.  xii.  8-10.  A miracle  is  a 
supernatural  work  which  no  created  being  can  perform, 
and  therefore  the  working  of  miracles  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
proves  him  to  be  divine.  The  “laws  of  Nature,”  as  they 
are  called,  God  has  established,  and  he  alone  can  suspend 
them ; but  as  a miracle  is  a suspension  of  some  law  of 
Nature,  the  Holy  Spirit  in  working  miracles  vindicates 
his  claim  to  divinity. 

I may  say  also  that  what  is  said  of  blasphemy  against 
the  Holy  Spirit  furnishes  conclusive  proof  of  his  Deity ; 
“All  sins  shall  be  forgiven  unto  the  sons  of  men,  and 


HOLY  SPIRITS  PERSONALITY  AND  DEITY.  95 


blasphemies  wherewithsoever  they  shall  blaspheme:  but 
he  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
never  forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation: 
because  they  said,  He  hath  an  unclean  spirit.”  Mark  iii 
28-30.  Ihe  intimation  here  seems  to  be  that  ascribing 
an  evil  sj  irit  to  Christ  and  saying  that  his  miracles  were 
wrought  by  such  a spirit,  and  not  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
was  blaspheming  against  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  sin  was 
not  to  be  forgiven,  and  this  fact  implies  the  divinity  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  That  is,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  divine, 
we  cannot  see  why  a sin  committed  against  him  cannot  be 
forgiven,  especially  as  sins  against  the  Father  and  the 
Son  are  forgiven.  There  is  of  course  something  peculiar 
in  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  rendering  it  un- 
pardonable, but  the  peculiarity,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  is 
inseparable  from  the  Deity  of  the  Spirit. 

It  will  be  seen  that  I prefer  the  phrase  Holy  Spirit  to 
Holy  Ghost,  though  they  are  of  the  same  import.  The 
chief  reason  for  the  preference  is  that  Spirit  is  a more 
familiar  word  than  Ghost,  and  is  therefore  better  under- 
stood, to  say  nothing  of  associations  connected  with  the 
latter  term.  It  is  a singular  fact  that  “ Holy  Ghost  ” is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  though  it  occurs 
frequently  in  the  New. 

There  has  been  some  curiosity  felt  as  to  the  more  fre- 
quent application  of  the  epithet  “ Holy  ” to  the  Spirit 
than  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  As  there  is  in  tne 
three  persons  of  the  Godhead  equality  of  nature,  there 
must  be  equality  of  holiness.  The  holiness  is  infinite, 
and  in  the  infinite  there  are  no  degrees.  The  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  equally  and  perfectly 
holy.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  Spirit  is  emphatically 
called  Holy  to  denote  official  distinction.  In  other  words, 
the  Spirit  is  termed  Holy  because  it  is  his  office  to  make 


96 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


holy.  It  is  his  work  to  deposit  the  germ  of  holiness  in 
the  »sinful  heart  of  man.  There  is  no  holiness  in  any 
human  heart  till  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  it.  The  germ 
of  holiness  implanted  in  regeneration  is  developed  in 
sanctification;  which  is,  equally  with  regeneration,  the 
work  of  the  Spirit.  The  third  person  in  the  Godhead 
in  designated  the  Holy  Spirit  because  he  renovate*  the 
feoui,  purifies  it,  and  prepares  it  for  heaven. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOD. 

The  transition  from  the  being  and  attributes  of  God  to 
his  purposes  is  natural  and  easy.  For  if  there  is  a God 
infinite  in  wisdom  and  holiness  and  glory,  he  must  act 
according  to  a predetermined  plan.  The  perfection  of 
his  nature  suggests  this.  If,  as  has  been  shown,  there  are 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  coequal  and  coeternal,  it 
accords  with  reason  to  suppose  that  in  their  triune  com- 
munings  and  consultations — to  speak  after  the  manner  of 
men — they  decided  from  eternity  on  a programme  to  be 
carried  into  effect  to  eternity.  Such  decision  is  embraced 
in  the  purposes  of  God,  and  is  in  truth  his  all-comprehen- 
sive decree.  With  regard  to  the  divine  purposes  it  may 
be  said — 

1.  They  are  eternal.  The  eternity  of  the  divine  pur- 
poses cannot  be  severed  from  the  eternity  of  the  divine 
existence.  We  are  utterly  unable  to  conceive  of  God  as 
sitting  in  purposeless  majesty  on  his  throne.  Could  we 
form  such  a conception  it  would  be  infinitely  unworthy 
of  God.  As  we  cannot  think  of  the  sun  apart  from  the 
light  and  heat  which  he  sends  forth,  so  we  cannot  think 
of  God  apart  from  his  purposes.  But  what  do  the 
Scriptures  say? — “Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  in- 
herit the  kingdom  prepared  for  }7ou  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world.”  Matt.  xxv.  34.  If  we  ask  in  what  sense 

9 


97 


98 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


the  kingdom  was  prepared  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  the  answer  is,  In  the  purpose  of  God.  A purpose 
which  can  be  traced  back  to  the  foundation  of  the  world 
is  the  purpose  of  him  who  made  the  world,  and  must  be 
as  eternal  as  himself.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
there  are  several  passages  which  teach  the  eternity  of 
God’s  purposes : “ According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in 
him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.”  Eph.  i.  4. 
“ The  fellowship  of  the  mystery  which  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  world  hath  been  hid  in  God.  . . . Accord- 
ing to  the  eternal  purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ 
Jesus  our  Lord.”  iii.  9,  11.  There  could  have  been  no 
choice,  no  election,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world 
if  there  had  not  been  a purpose  antedating  the  creation 
of  the  world ; and  such  a purpose  must  have  been  eternal. 
While  the  “manifold  wisdom  of  God”  in  the  redemption 
of  the  church  is  made  known  to  the  inhabitants  of  heav- 
en, it  is  according  to  his  eternal  purpose.  In  2 Tim.  i.  9 
it  is  written,  “ Who  hath  saved  us,  and  called  us  with  a 
holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to 
his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ 
Jesus  before  the  world  began.”  The  grace  was  given  in 
the  purpose  of  God  before  the  world  began,  and  in  this 
sense  the  grace  was  coeval  with  the  purpose.  Peter,  in  re- 
ferring to  Christ,  says,  “ Who  verily  was  foreordained  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  was  manifest  in 
these  last  times  for  you.”  1 Pet.  i.  20.  Christ  was  mani- 
fested by  his  incarnation,  but  the  manifestation  was  in 
pursuance  of  the  foreordination  of  God,  which  bore  date 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world — a form  of  expression 
equivalent  to  the  words  from  eternity . These  scriptures 

sufficiently  show  the  purposes  of  God  to  be  eternal. 

2.  They  are  also  full  of  wisdom . God  is  infinite]}7’  wise, 
and  therefore  his  purposes  are  wise.  It  would  be  absurd 


THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOD. 


99 


to  suppose  a conflict  between  the  nature  of  God  and  liis 
plan  of  operation.  In  judging  of  the  divine  purposes 
we  should  ever  remember  that  they  are  unfolded  only  in 
part,  and  for  this  reason  the  wisdom  pertaining  to  them 
is  disclosed  but  in  part.  Still,  we  have  such  indications 
of  wisdom  in  the  works  and  ways  of  God  as  to  call  forth 
the  exclamatory  words  of  an  apostle  : “ Oh,  the  depth  of 
the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God  !” 
Rom.  xi.  33. 

Our  attention  has  been  directed  in  another  place  to 
some  of  the  proofs  of  divine  wisdom  as  seen  in  creation, 
providence,  and  redemption ; nor  should  we  forget  that 
whatever  proves  the  wisdom  of  God  in  his  works  is  an 
argument  in  favor  of  the  wisdom  of  his  purposes.  For 
all  his  works  are  performed  in  accordance  with  his  pur- 
poses. The  strongest  proof  of  the  wisdom  of  the  divine 
purposes  is  to  be  found  in  the  scheme  of  redemption,  as 
we  learn  from  Eph.  iii.  10 : “ To  the  intent  that  now  unto 
the  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly  places  might  be 
known,  by  the  church,  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God.” 
These  orders  of  celestial  beings  had  seen  much  of  the 
wisdom  of  God  in  the  wonders  of  creation  and  the  reve- 
lations of  providence,  but  the  disclosures  of  redemption 
through  Christ  gave  them  new  views  of  what  is  termed 
“ the  manifold  wisdom  of  God.”  But  redemption  itself 
and  all  its  disclosures  are  in  pursuance  of  God's  purposes, 
and  these  purposes  must  therefore  be  full  of  wisdom. 

3.  They  are  likewise  free.  God  freely  formed  his  pun 
[,ose?  in  himself.  The  reasons  for  their  formation  were 
all  in  himself,  for  there  were  no  external  influences  to  act 
on  him.  The  freedom,  too,  with  which  God  framed  his 
decrees  was  in  direct  opposition  to  what  has  been  called 
by  some,  u necessity  of  nature.”  He  was  not  obliged  to 
form  the  purposes  which  the  Bible  reveals,  but  might 


100 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


have  formed  different  purposes.  To  illustrate:  He  might 
have  purposed  the  creation  of  a world  ten  or  twenty 
times  as  large  as  the  one  we  inhabit,  to  be  illuminated  by 
a plurality  of  suns  by  day  and  a plurality  of  moons  by 
night.  He  might  have  decreed  the  formation  of  rational 
creatures  alone  or  of  irrational  creatures  alone.  He 
might  have  purposed  the  salvation  of  some  or  all  of 
the  fallen  angels,  or  the  salvation  of  more  or  less  of  the 
human  race  than  will  be  finally  saved.  These  supposi- 
tions  are  designed  to  give^pmphasis  to  the  idea  that  the 
divine  purposes  are  free,  f God  in  forming  them  was  infi- 
nitely at  liberty  to  do  his  pleasure.  He  arranged  the  plan 
according  to  which  he  is  carrying  on  the  affairs  of  the 
universe,  and  of  all  the  plans  conceivable  by  his  omnis- 
cient mind  he  adopted  the  one  which  seemed  to  him  bes0 
The  adoption  was  not  arbitrary,  not  without  reason. 
There  were  the  wisest  and  the  best  reasons  controlling  his 
purposes  and  making  them  just  what  they  are.  “Even 
so,  Father;  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight.”  The 
reasons  of  the  divine  purposes  it  is  not  given  to  men  or 
angels  to  know,  but  they  are  treasured  up  in  that  which 
seems  good  in  the  sight  of  God.  /They  are  to  be  found  in 
what  is  called  “ the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,”  and  if  his 
purposes  accord  with  his  pleasure,  his  good  pleasure,  they 
are  fre^jj  It  is  therefore  written,  “ Who  hath  directed  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord,  or  being  his  counsellor  hath  taught  him? 
With  whom  took  he  counsel,  and  who  instructed  him,  and 
taught  him  in  the  path  of  judgment,  and  taught  him 
knowledge,  and  showed  to  him  the  way  of  understand- 
ing ?”  Isa.  xl.  13,  14.  “ For  who  hath  known  the  mind 

of  the  Lord?  or  who  hath  been  his  counsellor?”  Rom.  xi. 
34.  “ For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  that 

he  may  instruct  him?*'  1 Cor.  ii.  16. 

4.  The  purposes  of  God  aie  unchangeable . The  immuta- 


THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOD. 


101 


Dility  of  God  is  a truth  decisive  of  the  immutability  of 
his  purposes.  As  he  is  unchangeable,  it  does  not  accord 
with  reason  that  h,is  plans  and  purposes  should  be  vari- 
able. It  may  be  said  of  men  that  they  often  change  their 
purposes.  Why  is  it  so  ? Because  in  some  cases  they  are 
too  ignorant  to  form  wise  purposes,  and  in  other  instances 
they  lack  ability  to  execute  purposes  which  are  wise  and 
good.  When  purposes  are  seen  to  be  unwise,  they  should 
be  promptly  given  up  and  other  purposes  should  take 
l heir  place.  So  also  the  purposes  which  cannot  be  exe- 
cuted should  be  superseded  by  those  that  are  practi- 
cable. Thus,  because  men  have  so  little  wisdom  and  so 
little  power,  it  is  often  the  best  thing  they  can  do  to  change 
their  purposes.  But  how  is  it  with  God  ? His  wisdom  is 
infinite.  When  he  formed  his  purposes  he  knew  all  the 
future.  Nothing,  therefore,  that  occurs  can  take  him  by 
surprise.  Knowing  all  things  from  the  beginning,  had  he 
known  that  any  event  or  combination  of  events  would 
detract  from  the  wisdom  of  a purpose,  his  knowledge 
would  have  prevented  the  formation  of  the  purpose.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  infinite  wisdom  of  God  renders 
needless  a change  of  his  purposes.  So  also  of  his  power ; 
he  can  do  anything  which  does  not  involve  a contradic 
tion,  or  antagonize  with  the  perfection  of  his  nature.  It 
is  morally  certain  that  no  divine  purpose  would,  in  its 
execution,  require  either  of  these  impossible  things  to  be 
done,  and  we  may  therefore  say  that  no  lack  of  power 
on  the  part  of  God  will  ever  render  it  necessary  for  him 
to  change  his  purposes.  This  reasoning,  however,  amounts 
to  nothing  unless  the  Bible  sustains  it.  What,  then,  does 
the  Bible  say  ? — “ The  counsel  of  the  Lord  standeth  for 
ever,  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  to  all  generations  ” (Ps. 
xxxiii.  11) ; “ The  Lord  of  hosts  hath  sworn,  saying,  Surely 
as  I have  thought,  so  shall  it  come  to  pass ; and  as  I have 

9 * 


102 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


purposed,  so  shall  it  stand”  (Isa.  xiv.  24)  ; “My  counsel 
shall  stand,  and  I will  do  all  my  pleasure”  (Isa.  xlvi. 
10) ; “ I am  the  Lord,  I change  not  ” (Mai.  iii.  6) ; “ With 
whom  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning.” 
James  i.  17. 

5.  His  purposes  do  not  make  God  the  author  of  sin.  Here 
we  are  required  to  survey  a field  on  which  many  a theo- 
logical battle  has  been  fought.  It  has  been  said  and  writ-* 
ten  a thousand  times  that  if  God  has  decreed  from 
eternity  whatever  comes  to  pass,  as  sin  is  one  of  the 
tilings  that  have  come  to  pass,  God  must  be  the  author 
of  sin.  I suppose  that  all  things  which  come  to  pass 
may  be  included  in  two  classes  ; namely,  things  which 
God  does  by  his  positive  agency,  and  things  which  he 
permits  to  be  done.  Things  belonging  to  the  former  class 
are  embraced  in  his  efficient  purposes,  while  things  belong- 
ing to  the  latter  class  are  embraced  in  his  permissive  pur- 
poses. This  distinction  between  the  purposes  of  God 
must  not  be  forgotten,  if  we  would  know  the  truth  as  the 
Bible  reveals  it.  The  distinction  itself  is  recognized  and 
variously  illustrated  in  the  Scriptures.  It  was  no  doubt 
among  the  efficient  purposes  of  God  to  create  the  world, 
to  make  Adam  the  ancestor  of  his  race,  to  endow  him 
with  free  agency  and  place  him  in  the  garden  of  Eden. 
In  pursuance  of  his  efficient  purposes  God  did  all  this, 
but  did  he  in  the  same  manner  decree  the  sin  of  Adam  ? 
Clearly  he  did  not.  His  purpose  in  regard  to  Adam’s  sin 
was  only  permissive ; it  was  not  efficient.  I am  aware 
that  the  word  “permissive  ” is  not  wholly  free  from  objec- 
tion, but  I know  of  no  better  word.  The  objection  to  it 
is  that  some  persons  will  regard  it  as  expressive  of  sanc- 
tion, if  not  of  approval.  I protest  against  this  under- 
standing of  the  word.  There  was,  on  the  part  of  God,,  no 
approval,  no  sanction  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  yet  it  was  per* 


THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOD. 


103 


mitted.  God  could  have  prevented  the  introduction  of 
sin  into  the  world,  and  would  have  done  so  had  its  non- 
introduction  been  among  his  efficient  purposes,  but  it  was 
not.  Its  introduction  was  among  his  permissive  pur- 
poses ; and  Adam,  in  the  exercise  of  his  free  agency, 
sinned.  So  it  has  been  with  Adam’s  descendants  in  every 
age.  God  has  permitted  them  to  sin ; but,  so  far  from  giv- 
ing sanction  to  their  sins,  he  has  expressed  his  abhorrence 
and  condemnation  of  evil  in  the  waters  of  the  flood,  in 
the  fires  of  Sodom,  in  the  calamities  of  war,  in  the  hard- 
ships of  captivity,  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  in 
a thousand  other  ways.  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin, 
neither  has  he  “ fellowship  with  any  therein  ” — no  fellow- 
ship with  the  devil  who  tempts  men  to  sin,  and  no  fellow- 
ship with  men  in  yielding  to  temptation.  “ To  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony “ Let  no  man  say  when  he  is 
tempted,  I am  tempted  of  God : for  God  cannot  be 
tempted  of  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man.”  James 
i.  13.  So  immaculate  is  his  holiness  that,  in  the  sense 
of  soliciting  to  evil,  it  is  morally  impossible  for  God  to 
tempt  any  man,  and  equally  impossible  for  him  to  be 
tempted  of  evil.  None  but  pure  influences  can  reach 
him,  none  but  pure  influences  can  emanate  from  him. 
Perish  the  thought  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin ! for  it 
was  in  his  “ wise  and  holy  counsel  ” that  he  decreed  al] 
things. 

6.  In  Gods  purposes  “ violence  is  not  offered  to  the  will  of 
the  creature .”  There  are  no  truths  more  plainly  revealed 
in  the  Bible  than  that  God  is  sovereign  and  man  is  free. 
The  King  of  Babylon,  when  saved  from  the  calamity  that 
came  upon  him  and  restored  to  reason,  said  of  Jehovah, 
“He  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven, 
and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  : and  none  can 
stay  his  hand,  cr  say  unto  him,  What  doest  thou  ?”  Dan. 


104 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


iv.  35  It  is  the  glory  of  the  universe  that  such  a Be* 
ing  sits  on  the  .throne  and  sways  nis  sceptre  over  all 
worlds.  Supreme  dominion  belongs  to  God,  and  he  ex- 
ercises absolute  control  over  things  animate  and  inani- 
mate over  creatures  rational  and  irrational.  But  the  ex- 
ercise of  divine  sovereignty  does  not  conflict  with  human 
agency.  It  was,  doubtless,  among  the  purposes  of  God  to 
make  man  a free  agent.  What  is  a free  agent?  I answer 
in  the-  words  of  Andrew  Fuller  : “ A free  agent  is  an  intel- 
ligent being,  who  is  at  liberty  to  act  according  to  his 
choice,  without  compulsion  or  restraint.”  The  question 
is  not  as  to  what  prompts  to  action;  the  point  is  that  the 
action  is  free.  Men  have  acted  freely  in  all  ages  of  the 
world.  The  purposes  of  God,  whether  efficient  or  permis- 
sive, have  not  prevented  such  action.  Good  men  have 
acted  freely,  and  bad  men  have  acted  with  equal  freedom. 
In  the  world’s  infancy,  Abel,  in  the  exercise  of  his  choice, 
presented  his  offering  to  the  Lord ; and  Cain,  without  com- 
pulsion, became  the  murderer  of  his  brother.  Abraham, 
at  the  command  of  God,  voluntarily  left  the  land  of  his 
fathers;  and  the  brothers  of  Joseph7 voluntarily  sold  him 
as  a slave  to  the  Ishmaelites,  in  violation  of  their  obligation 
to  God  and  in  disregard  of  the  claims  of  fraternal  duty. 
In  these  cases  the  obedience  and  the  disobedience  were 
equally  free.  “ No  violence  was  offered  to  the  will  ” in 
either  case. 

Perhaps  the  most  striking  instance  of  the  harmony 
between  the  purposes  of  God  and  the  free  agency  of  men 
is  recorded  in  Acts  ii.  23 : “ Him,  being  delivered  by  the 
determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have 
taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain.” 
The  death  of  Christ  occurred,  without  doubt,  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  purpose  of  God ; nor  can  we  conceive  how 
any  divine  purpose  could  be  more  property  formed  than 


THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOD. 


105 


in  connection  with  such  an  event.  The  Lamb  was 
“slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,” — that  is,  slain 
in  the  purpose  of  God — but  the  Jews  acted  very  wickedly 
in  procuring  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.  They  never  acted 
more  freely.  There  was  a perfect  absence  of  compulsion. 
The  purpose  of  God  was  executed,  and  in  its  execution 
there  was  such  a murder  committed  as  never  took  place 
before  and  will  never  take  place  again.  There  was  “no 
violence  offered  to  the  will  ” of  the  murderers,  but  they 
acted  with  perfect  freedom.  If  any  one  asks,  How  could 
these  things  be  ? I answer,  The  facts  are  as  I have  stated ; 
the  philosophy  of  the  facts  I do  not  attempt  to  explain. 
To  make  the  attempt  would  be  to  add  one  more  to  the 
number  of  those  who  have  “ darkened  counsel  by  words 
without  knowledge.” 

Having  presented  these  general  views  of  the  purposes 
of  God,  it  is  proper  before  closing  this  chapter  to  say 
something  of  Predestination  as  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
While  there  is  nothing  in  the  term  itself  which  forbids 
its  use  in  the  sense  of  the  foreordination  of  all  events,  it 
is  commonly  employed  with  reference  to  human  beings. 
It  comprehends  the  purpose  of  election,  and  also,  as  will 
be  shown,  the  purpose  of  “ reprobation,”  as  it  has  been 
called,  which,  as  has  been  well  said,  “is  nothing  more 
than  withholding  from  some  the  grace  which  is  imparted 
to  others.”  1 These  two  purposes  may  be  expressed  thus : 
“ That  God  chose  in  Christ  certain  persons  of  the  fallen 
race  of  Adam,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  unto 
eternal  glory,  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace, 
without  regard  to  their  foreseen  faith  and  good  works,  or 
any  conditions  performed  by  them ;”  and  that  from  the 
rest  of  mankind  he  withheld  his  grace  and  left  them  to 
dishonor,  and  the  just  punishment  of  their  sins.  The 
1 Hills  Divinity  p.  561. 


106 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


ideas  brought  to  view  in  this  statement  need  and  deserve 
expansion.  I may  therefore  say — 

1.  Election  is  personal  The  choice  exercised  is  a choice 
of  persons.  It  is  a choice  of  persons  as  distinguished 
from  nations.  The  Jews  were  in  one  sense  an  elect 
nation,  but  their  election  from  among  the  nations  had 
no  special  reference  to  eternal  life,  to  which  persons  are 
elected ; and  in  addition  to  this,  they  were  the  only  elect 
nation  the  world  ever  saw.  But  to  see  that  election  is 
not  national  we  need  only  turn  to  Rev.  v.  9 : “ And  they 
sung  a new  song,  saying,  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the 
book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof : for  thou  wast  slain, 
and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood  out  of  every 
kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation.”  Here  we 
are  plainly  taught  that  salvation  is  not  national  deliver- 
ance, but  that  the  saved  are  redeemed  out  of  every  nation. 
An  eclectic  operation  is  referred  to — persons  selected  out 
of  nations.  The  theory  of  national  election  cannot  be 
maintained  as  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament. 

Election  is  not  only  personal  as  distinguished  from 
national,  but  it  is  of  individuals  as  distinguished  from 
individuals.  The  line  of  discrimination  runs  between 
persons.  When  Paul  says  in  Rom.  xvi.  13,  “ Salute 
Rufus,  chosen  in  the  Lord,”  the  reference  must  be  to 
personal  election,  as  also  when  he  writes  to  the  members 
of  the  Thessalonian  church,  “ God  hath  from  the  begin- 
ning chosen  you  to  salvation.”  2 Thess.  ii.  13.  Peter,  m 
writing  to  the  “ strangers  scattered  abroad,”  addressing 
them  as  “ elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God 
the  Father,”  must  have  meant  personal  election.  If  it  is 
said  that  the  election  of  some  is  the  rejection  of  others, 
it  may  be  remarked,  Rejection  is  a term  needlessly 
strong,  and  it  is  preferable  to  say  that  God  has  left  others 
as  they  were.  TI  e decree  of  election  leaves  them  where 


THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOD. 


107 


- 


they  would  have  been  had  there  been  no  election  of  any 
No  injustice  is  done  them.  The  truth  is,  election  ia 
injustice  to  none,  while  it  is  an  unspeakable  blessing  to 
some.  It  takes  a multitude  which  no  man  can  number 
but  which  God  can  number,  out  of  the  fallen  race  of 
Adam,  and  raises  them  up  to  hope  and  heaven. 

" 2.  Election  is  eternal.  In  proof  of  this  the  following 
passages  may  be  quoted : “ According  as  he  hath  chosen 
us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we 
should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  him  in  love  ” 
(Eph.  i.  4);  “Who  hath  saved  us  and  called  us  with  a 
holy  calling,  not  according  to -our  works,  but  according 
to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in 
Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began  ” (2  Tim.  i.  9);  “ God 
hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth.”  2 
Thess.  ii.  13. 

After  what  has  been  said  on  preceding  pages  concern- 
ing the  eternity  of  God,  and  the  consequent  eternity  of 
his  purposes,  it  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge  on  a point  so 
plain  as  that  his  election  of  his  people  is  from  eternity. 
Election,  being  inseparable  from  the  divine  purposes,  is 
as  eternal  as  they.  As  it  has  to  do  with  eternal  life,  it  is 
eternal,  as  going  back  to  the  unbeginning  past  and  for- 
ward to  the  unending  future. 

3.  Election  was  not  in  view  of  foreseen  faith  and  good 
works.  There  are  some  who  make  faith  and  good  works 
the  ground  of  election.  That  is,  they  suppose  that  God 
elected  his  people  because  he  foresaw  their  faith  and 
good  works.  This  view  transposes  cause  and  effect,  foi 
it  makes  election  dependent  on  faith  and  good  works, 
whereas  faith  and  good  works  are  scripturally  depend- 
ent on  election.  When  we  read,  “chosen  . . . that  we 
should  be  holy,”  it  is  obvious  that  the  election  is  not 


108 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


because  of  holiness,  but  in  order  to  holiness.  The  pur- 
pose of  election  contemplates  the  sanctification  of  the 
elect,  and  therefore  regards  them  as  sinners  needing 
sanctification.  The  same  truth  is  suggested  by  the  words, 

For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to 
be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son.”  Rom.  viii.  29. 
Here  evidently  the  predestination,  including  election,  did 
not  find  its  basis  or  reason  in  the  conformity  of  the  pre- 
destinated to  the  image  of  Christ,  but  the  conformity  is 
the  result  of  the  predestination.  As  to  the  much-contro- 
verted  passage  in  Acts  xiii.  48,  “And  as  many  as  were 
ordained  to  eternal  life  believed,”  the  only  natural  inter- 
pretation is  that  they  believed  because  of  their  ordination 
to  eternal  life.  The  Arminian  view  is  without  foundation 
in  the  word  of  God ; for  election  is  the  source,  the  only 
source,  whence  spring  faith,  holiness,  and  good  works. 

4.  The  purpose  of  election  is  irreversible.  This  is  the  only 
view  of  the  matter  that  is  worthy  of  God.  Changeable 
purposes  would  detract  from  his  glory  as  an  infinitely 
perfect  Being.  The  purpose  of  election  is  not  arbitrary, 
is  not  without  reason.  God  does  nothing  without  reason, 
but  the  reason  or  reasons  of  his  action  he  is  not  always 
pleased  to  reveal.  Why  he  chose  some  persons  to  eternal 
life  in  preference  to  others,  we  do  not  know,  but  if  the 
reasons  of  his  choice  were  satisfactory  to  him  when  the 
choice  was  made,  they  will  be  satisfactory  for  ever,  unless 
better  reasons  should  present  themselves  to  his  mind — a 
supposition  which  the  perfection  of  his  character  does  not 
Cor  a moment  tolerate.  In  short,  there  can  be  no  philo- 
sophic belief  that  God  will  reverse  his  purpose  of  elec- 
tion, and  the  Scriptures  confirm  the  teachings  of  sound 
philosophy.  Jesus  says  of  his  disciples,  “And  I give 
unto  them  eternal  life;  and  they  shall  never  perish, 
neither  shah  any  man  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand.  My 


THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOD. 


109 


Father,  which  gave  them  me,  is  greater  than  all ; and  no 
man  is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father’s  hand.” 
John  x.  28,  29.  Here  the  security  of  believers  is  strongly 
asserted ; but  whence  arises  the  security  ? Chiefly  from 
the  fact  that  the  Father  gave  them  to  the  Son  in  the  pur- 
pose of  election.  If,  however,  the  purpose  is  reversible, 
there  is  no  security.  We  are  also  taught  that  “ God,  will- 
ing more  abundantly  to  show  unto  the  heirs  of  promise 
the  immutability  of  his  counsel,  confirmed  it  by  an  oath : 
that  by  two  immutable  things,  in  which  it  was  impossi- 
ble for  God  to  lie,  we  might  have  a strong  consolation.” 
Heb.  vi.  17,  18.  The  “ strong  consolation  ” grows  out  of 
the  immutability  of  the  divine  counsel,  which  is  con- 
firmed by  an  oath  ; and  the  purpose  of  election,  being 
included  in  the  divine  counsel,  is  as  immutable  as  the 
counsel  itself.  It  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge.  Surely 
the  purpose  of  election  is  irreversible. 

* is  well  at  this  point  to  answer  an  objection  that  is 
often  made  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  It  is  said 
that  while  the  economy  of  Nature  and  grace  illustrates 
the  use  of  means,  predestination  renders  their  use  un- 
necessary. Why  unnecessary?  Because  the  objector  sup- 
poses a predestinated  end  will  be  accomplished  without 
means.  There  is  nothing,  however,  to  justify  such  a sup- 
position. We  can  find  nothing  in  the  realm  of  Nature  to 
counfSKnce  it.  God  said  to  Noah,  “ While  the  earth  re- 
maineth,  seed-time  and  harvest,  and  cold  and  heat,  and 
summer  and  winter,  and  day  and  night  shall  - not  cease.” 
viii.  22.  The  object  in  view  requires  me  to  refer  only 
to  “ harvest”  as  included  among  the  purposes  of  God.  It 
will  not  be  denied  that  God  has  decreed  the  production 
of  harvests  while  the  earth  remains ; but  has  he  decreed 
the  production  of  miraculous  harvests,  that  is,  harvests 
without  the  sowing  of  seed?  Manifestly  not.  “Seed- 
10 


110 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


time  ” is  mentioned  as  before  ‘ harvest,”  and  clearly 
preparatory  to  it.  No  harvest  is  predestinated  apart 
from  seed-sowing.  The  means  are  appointed  equally 
with  the  end.  /Let  the  nations  practically  adopt  the 
philosophy  of  the*  objection  under  consideration, — name- 
ly, that  predestination  supersedes  the  use  of  means, — and 
what  must  follow  ? Universal  starvation.  But  we  need 
not  anticipate  this  world-wide  calamity 5 for  men  exerci£6 
common  sense  on  every  subject  except  that  of  religion. 

Paul’s  voyage  to  Rome  is  often  referred  to  as  illustrative 
of  the  connection  between  means  and  ends.  apostle 

bad  been  assured  by  an  angel  of  God  that  of  the  two  hun- 
dred and  seventy-six  persons  on  board  the  ship  not  one 
should  be  lost ; but  when  he  saw  that  “ the  shipmen  were 
about  to  flee  out  of  the  ship,”  he  “ said  to  the  centurion 
and  to  the  soldiers,  Except  these  abide  in  the  ship  ye  can- 
not be  saved.”  The  safe  deliverance  of  all  on  board  the 
storm-tossed  vessel  was  the  predestinated  event,  but  it  could 
not  be  accomplished  unless  the  “ shipmen  ” remained  in 
their  position  and  performed  their  dutj^J)  Thus  in  the 
natural  world,  on  the  land  and  on  the  sea,  we  see  that 
means  are  predestinated  as  well  as  ends,  and  that  ends 
cannot  be  accomplished  without  the  use  of  means. 

How  is  it  in  the  realm  of  grace  ? The  principle  is  the 
same,  showing  the  God  of  Nature  to  be  the  God  of  grace. 
u Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also 
called : and  wrhom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified : and 
whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified.”  Rom.  viii.  30. 
In  this  verse  we  have,  if  I may  so  call  it,  a golden  chain 
of  four  links,  and  this  chain  reaches  from  eternity  to  eter- 
nity. The  first  link  is  predestination,  and  the  last  glorifi- 
cation, while  the  two  intervening  links  are  calling  and  jus- 
tification. The  first  link  has  no  connection  with  the  last, 
except  through  the  intermediate  links.  That  is  to  say, 


THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOP. 


Ill 


there  is  no  way  in  which  the  purpose  of  God  in  predesti- 
nation can  reach  its  end  in  glorification,  if  calling  and  jus- 
tification do  not  take  place.  But  calling  and  justification 
are  inseparable  from  “ repentance  toward  God  and  faith 
toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  Repentance  and  faith, 
then,  not  to  name  other  things,  are  means  through  which 
the  purpose  of  God  in  election  is  accomplished.  God, 
therefore,  in  predestinating  the  salvation  of  his  people, 
predestinated  their  repentance,  and  faith  and  all  other 
means  necessary  to  their  salvation.  If  any  inquire,  as  is 
sometimes  the  case,  what  will  become  of  those  elected  to 
eternal  life  if  they  do  not  repent  and  believe,  it  is  best  to 
answer  by  asking  what  would  have  become  of  the  per- 
sons in  the  ship  with  Paul  if  the  “ shipmen  ” had  not  re- 
mained at  their  posts  of  duty.  If  it  is  said  the  “ship- 
men  ” did  remain,  I say,  those  chosen  to  salvation  will 
repent  and  believe. 

(.The  following  passages  teach  the  use  of  means  in  con- 
nection with  the  purpose  of  God  in  election  “ God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  yo'u  to  salvation  through  sanc- 
tification of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth  ” (2  Thess. 
ii.  13)  ; “ Therefore  I endure  all  things  for  the  elect’s  sake, 
that  they  may  also  obtain  the  salvation  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus  with  eternal  glory  ” (2  Tim.  ii.  10);  “Elect  accord- 
ing to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  ” (1  Pet.  i.  2) ; “ For  we  are 
his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  -Jesus  unto  good 
works,  which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should 
walk  in  them.”  Eph.  ii.  10.  From  the  first  of  these 
scriptures  we  learn  that  election  to  salvation  is  indicated 
by  “sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth  ;” 
from  the  second,  that  Paul’s  many  trials  as  a minister  had 
an  instrumental  connection  with  the  salvation  of  the  elect; 


112 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


from  the  third,  that  election  is  not  only  through  sanctifi 
cation  of  the  Spirit,  but  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  from  the  last,  that  the  pur- 
pose of  election  embraces  foreordination  to  good  works. 
In  view  of  these  passages  it  is  plain  that  the  doctrine  of 
predestination  does  not  supersede  the  use  of  means,  but 
requires  them.  > 

Before  dismissing  this  -topic  it  should  be  said  that  as 
God’s  purpose  of  election  is  “ in  himself,”  we  can  know 
nothing  about  it  till  it  is  disclosed  in  the  “ calling  ” al- 
ready referred  to.  Paul,  for  example,  when  he  preached 
in  Thessalonica,  knew  nothing  of  the  election  of  any  of 
its  citizens  to  eternal  life,  but  after  the  grace  of  God  was 
displayed  in  “effectual  calling”  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
write,  “ Knowing,  brethren,  beloved,  your  election  of 
God.”  1 Thess.  i.  4.  Hence,  too,  Peter  wrote  to  his  breth- 
ren, “ Give  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election 
sure.”  2 Pet.  i.  10.  It  is  observable  that  he  puts  calling 
before  election.  God  begins  with  election,  but  man  can- 
not. He  must  begin  with  the  calling,  and  when  he 
makes  that  sure,  the  election  is  sure.  The  calling  is  the 
only  attainable  proof  of  the  election.  It  will  be  seen, 
therefore,  that  the  question  of  election  is,  in  the  hands 
of  a sinner,  the  most  unmanageable  of  all  questions. 
The  reason  is,  it  is  none  of  his  business,  and  he  can  do 
nothing  with  it.  The  time  has  been  when  in  some  places 
sinners,  becoming  serious  on  the  subject  of  salvation,  in- 
stead of  repenting  and  believing  in  Christ,  employed 
themselves  in  efforts  equally  earnest  and  fruitless  to  as- 
certain whether  they  were  elect  or  non-elect.  This  was, 
is,  and  ever  must  be,  an  absurdity.  That  which  is  re- 
quired of  sinners  is  expressed  in  the  words  of  Peter: 
“ Repent  ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins 
may  be  blotted  out.”  Acts  iii.  19. 


THE  PURPOSES  OF  GOD. 


113 


In  closing  this  chapter  I make  a brief  reference  to  what  is 
often  called  God’s  purpose  of  “ reprobation,”  by  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  meant  his  purpose  to  leave  some  to  them* 
selves,  to  give  them  over  “ to  a reprobate  mind.”  Rom.  i.  28. 
That  there  is  such  a purpose  is  as  evident  as  that  God  has 
threatened  his  incorrigible  enemies  with  everlasting  destruc- 
tion. TIis  threatenings  are  in  pursuance  of  his  purpose,  and 
in  the  absence  of  purpose  there  would  be  no  threatenings. 
That  God  has  purposed  to  leave  to  dishonor  and  the  just 
punishment  of  their  sins  any  of  the  human  race  is  a tenet 
which  many  regard  as  both  incredible  and  cruel.  This 
tenet  has  been  often  misrepresented,  and  placed  even  in 
an  odious  light.  How  many  have  said  with  a semblance 
of  holy  horror,  “ Does  God  make  men  to  damn  them  ? 
Is  he  not  too  good  to  punish  his  creatures?”  In  both  of 
these  questions  there  is  a deceptive  ellipsis.  In  the  first, 
the  words  u for  their  sins  ” are  omitted ; and  in  the  second 
the  epithet  “ sinful  ” should  qualify  creatures.  No  intelli- 
gent believer  in  the  divine  purposes  will  say  that  God  has 
made  any  of  the  sons  of  men  with  a view  to  their  damna- 
tion without  respect  to  their  sins,  or  that  he  is  not  too  good 
to  punish  his  creatures  as  creatures.  But  how  is  it  as  to 
his  purpose  to  damn  men  for  their  sins  and  to  punish  his 
sinful  creatures?  We  must  not  suppose,  because  there  is 
a purpose  of  election  uninfluenced  by  foreseen  holiness, 
that  there  is  therefore  a purpose  of  reprobation  which  has 
no  connection  with  the  sins  of  men.  There  is  no  such 
purpose  as  the  latter,  for  the  wages  of  sin  is  death.  The 
lost  earn  the  wages  paid  them — eternal  death ; but  the 
saved  do  not  earn  eternal  life,  for  it  is  the  gift  of  God. 
It  is  a fact  that  every  mouth  is  stopped  and  all  the  world 
is  guilty  before  God.  All  the  inhabitants  of  the  world 
being  guilty  deserve  to  be  punished ; that  is,  deserve  to 
suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  by  a violation  of  which  guilt 
10  * 


114 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


has  been  incurred.  God  may  justly  punish  the  guilty — • 
all  the  guilty — for  their  sins.  If  he  chooses  to  save  some 
of  them  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace,  and  to  leave 
the  rest  to  suffer  the  consequences  of  sin  to  the  glory  of 
his  justice,  who  shall  find  fault?  Who  shall  charge  God 
with  unrighteousness?  But  some  object  to  any  purpose 
on  the  part  of  God  to  punish  sinners.  There  is  nothing 
valid  in  the  objection.  Gpd  does  punish  men  for  their 
sins.  It  is  therefore  right  for  him  to  do  so,  for  he  cannot 
do  wrong.  If  it  is  light,  it  cannot  be  wrong  for  him  to 
form  the  purpose  to  punish,  for  his  purpose  is  only  his 
intention  to  do  right  in  vindication  of  his  justice. 

Thus  does  it  appear  that  this  purpose  of  God  is  in 
full  accord  with  the  soundest  principles  of  reason  and 
righteousness.  It  is  nothing  more  than  his  determina- 
tion to  treat  those  who  live  and  die  in  impenitence  as 
they  deserve  to  be  treated.  There  will  be  no  departure 
from  these  principles  in  the  miseries  of  hell.  No  lost 
sinner  will  ever  feel  a pang  which  he  does  not  deserve  to 
feel.  There  will  be  no  arbitrary  infliction  of  pain.  No 
groan  will  be  capriciously  wrung  from  the  bosom.  No 
tear  will  be  causelessly  drawn  from  the  eye.  The  fires 
of  perdition  will  glorify  the  perfect  justice  of  God.  The 
wages  of  sin  is  death,  and  no  more  wages  will  be  paid 
than  have  been  earned.  Justice  will  be  done,  and  the 
sinner  will  feel  that  justice  has  him  in  custody.  What 
anguish  will  this  fact  create!  Could  the  ruined  sinner 
persuade  himself  that  his  damnation  is  his  misfortune, 
and  not  his  fault ; that  he  is  unjustly  dealt  with, — how 
would  his  miseries  be  alleviated!  But  there  will  be  no 
such  alleviation.  The  sorrows  of  hell  are  unmitigated 
sorrows.  The  lost  soul  will  know  and  feel  that  it  suffers 
its  deserts — no  more  no  less. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


CREATION. 


A consideration  of  the  work  of  creation  properly  fol- 
lows a discussion  of  the  divine  purposes.  The  reason  is 
obvious,  because  creation  initiates  the  execution  of  these 
purposes.  While  the  purposes  of  God  are  as  eternal  as 
himself,  there  could  be,  so  far  as  we  can  conceive,  no  exe- 
cution of  them  before  the  creation  of  the  universe.  He 
must  have  begun  to  do,  in  the  exercise  of  his  creative 
power,  what  he  from  eternity  had  determined  to  do. 
It  is  worthy  of  God  to  do  u all  things  after  the  counsel 
of  his  own  will and  this  means  that  he  conforms  his 
acts  to  the  plan  devised  by  his  infinite  wisdom.  This 
plan,  if  we  speak  after  the  manner  of  men,  called  for 
the  creation  of  all  things  that  were  brought  into  exist- 
ence. 

What  is  creation?  is  an  important  question.  Some 
learned  men  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times  have  held 
the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  matter.  Those  who  adopt 
this  view  do  not  believe  in  creation  in  the  supreme  sense 
of  the  word.  They  can  only  regard  it  as  the  disposal  and 
^arrangement  of  materials  already  existing^  The  correct 
theory  of  creation  is  th^production  of  something  out  of 
nothing^  The  philosophers  of  Greece  and  Rome,  as  well 
as  the  masses  of  the  people,  declared  this  impossible,  and 
accepted  as  ar  axiom  the  proverb,  “ Out  of  nothing  noth- 
in 


116 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


mg  comes.”  This  is  true,  so  far  as  finite  power  is  con- 
cerned, for  it  can  be  exerted  only  on  that  which  has  ex- 
istence. In  other  words,  it  must  have  something  to  work 
upon,  and  in  this  sense  it  is  subject  to  limitations.  But 
this  is  not  the  case  with  infinite  power;  and  therefore 
that  is  possible  with  God  which  is  impossible  with  men. 
“ In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.” 
Gen.  i.  1.  By  heaven  and  earth  is  no  doubt  meant  what 
we  mean  by  the  term  universe,  embracing  all  things ; and 
these  things  conceived  to  exist  in  two  classes,  things  above 
and  things  below.  When  God  created* heaven  and  earth 
he  brought  into  being  what  had  no  existence  before. 
There  was  an  absolute  production  of  something  out  of 
nothing.  We  need  not  ask  how  this  could  be,  for  it  is 
the  greatest  of  wonders  and  must  ever  defy  finite  compre- 
hension. While  man  in  his  operations  uses  materials  fur- 
nished to  his  hands,  God  in  creation  originated  materials 
themselves.  This  idea  of  absolute  origination  is  the  cen- 
tral idea  in  creation. 

We  are  dependent  on  the  Bible  for  what  we  know  of 
creation,  for  the  Bible  is  the  book  of  God.  As  he  was 
the  only  being  present  at  creation,  it  is  manifest  that  the 
book  inspired  by  him  is  the  only  book  which  can  give  us 
an  account  of  the  wonderful  display  of  his  creative  pow- 
er. “ Through  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  were 
framed  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  things  which  are  seen 
were  not  made  of  things  which  do  appear.”  Heb.  xi.  3. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  sacred  writer,  intending 
to  give  illustrations  of  the  power  and  value  of  faith,  refers 
first  to  the  creation  of  the  world.  No  secular  history  goes 
back  to  creation,  and  it  is  therefore  useless  to  search  his- 
torical records  for  information  concerning  the  creation  of 
the  world.  Nor  will  the  speculations  of  reason  and  philoso- 
phy enable  any  man  to  account  satisfactorily  for  the  work 


CREATION. 


117 


of  creation.  Men  have  often  indulged  in  such  specula- 
tions, but  they  have  proved  to  be  vain  and  unprofitable. 
Faith  is  the  only  means  of  attaining  satisfactory  know- 
ledge of  the  creation  of  the  universe.  “ By  faith  we  un- 
derstand.” Faith  implies  testimony,  and  the  testimony 
in  this  case  is  to  be  found  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis. 
There  we  learn  that  the  work  of  creation  was  performed 
by  the  word  of  God.  In  the  language  of  the  Psalmist, 
“ By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made ; and 
all  the  hjst  of  them  by  the  word  of  his  mouth.”  “For 
he  spake,  and  it  was  done;  he  commanded,  and  it  stood 
fast.”  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  9.  Infinite  energy  accompanied  his 
w’ord,  and  therefore  “the  worlds  were  framed  by  his 
word;”  and  the  inspired  account  of  the  matter  we  re- 
ceive by  faith,  accepting  the  testimony  only  and  solely 
because  it  is  the  testimony  of  God.  How  it  relieves  the 
anxious  mind  and  gives  rest  to  the  throbbing  brain  by 
faith  to  understand  that  the  worlds  were  framed  by  the 
word  of  God! 

But  the  reasoning  of  the  inspired  writer  is  that  if  “ the 
worlds  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God,”  then  “ things 
which  are  seen  were  not  made  of  things  which  do  ap- 
pear.” There  are  two  points  brought  to  view  here : First, 
that  things  which  are  seen  were  made,  that  is,  were 
brought  into  existence  ; and  secondly,  that  they  were  not 
made  out  of  “things  which  do  appear,”  that  is,  out  of 
pre-existing  materials.  There  was,  therefore,  in  the  high- 
est sense  of  the  word,  a creation.  This  was  God’s  work, 
lor  it  is  his ' prerogative  to  “call  those  things  which  are 
not  as  though  they  were.” 

In  contemplating  the  six  days  of  creation  it  is  wTell  to 
refer  to  the  Mosaic  account,  that  we  may  see  what  was 
done  on  each  day.  I therefore  quote  as  follows : “ In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.  And 


118 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


the  earth  was  without  form,  and  void ; and  darkness  was 
upon  the  face  of  the  deep  [the  abyss].  And  the  Spirit  of 
God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.  And  God  said, 
Let  there  be  light : and  there  was  light.  And  God  saw 
the  light  that  it  was  good:  and  God  divided  the  light 
frcm  the  darkness.  And  God  called  the  light  Day,  and 
the  darkness  he  called  Night.  And  the  evening  and  the 
morning  were  the  first  day.”  Gen.  i.  1-5. 

Philosophers  of  ancient  times  would  have  prized  more 
highly  than  thousands  of  gold  and  silver  this  state- 
ment, which  is  sublime  in  its  simplicity  and  simple  in  its 
sublimity.  Such  information  as  it  affords  would  have 
superseded  many  useless  speculations  and  fruitless  in- 
quiries. Of  the  earth,  it  is  said  that  it  was  “ without 
form,  and  void.”  What  is  called  “ the  deep,”  or  the 
abyss,  was  covered  with  darkness."  Everything  wTas  in  a 
state  of  chaotic  confusion,  and  “the  Spirit  of  God  moved 
upon  [or  brooded  over]  the  face  of  the  waters.”  The 
imagery  employed  here  is  supposed  by  scholars  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  brooding  of  fowls  over  their  eggs  to  com- 
municate life-giving  warmth.  There  was  nothing  but 
darkness.  Light  being  necessary  in  carrying  out  the  di- 
vine purposes,  God  said,  “ Let  there  be  light:  and  there 
was  light.”  The  forre,  the  beauty,  and  the  sublimity  of 
these  words  defy  paraphrase.  Concerning  light  many 
questions  may  be  asked  which  can  receive  no  answer, 
but  we  trace  its  origin  to  the  first  day  of  creation.  It 
seems  at  first  to  have  been  mingled  with  darkness,  but 
God  divided  between  the  two,  calling  the  light  day  and 
the  darkness  night.  When  the  light  making  the  day  was 
followed  by  darkness,  there  was  evening;  and  when  the 
darkness  was  followed  by  light,  there  was  morning.  The 
evening  and  the  morning — from  the  first  light  until  light 
came  again — constituted  the  first  day. 


CREATION. 


119 


“And  God  said  Let  there  be  a firmament  in  the  midst 
of  the  waters,  and  let  it  divide  the  waters  from  the  wa- 
ters. And  God  made  the  firmament,  and  divided  the 
waters  which  were  under  the  firmament  from  the  waters 
which  were  above  the  firmament:  and  it  was  so.  And 
God  called  the  firmament  Heaven.  And  the  evening  and 
the  morning  were  the  second  day.”  Gen.  i.  6-8. 

This  language  leads  us  to  infer  that  before  the  second 
jay  dense  vapors  and  mists  enveloped  the  earth.  There 
was  no  firmament,  no  expanse,  and  God  therefore  said,  “ Let 
Jiere  be  a firmament.”  The  purpose  of  this  firmament 
was  to  effect  a division  in  the  waters.  The  expanse  was  the 
place  of  division.  Below  this  expanse,  or  firmament,  the 
weightier  parts  of  the  waters  remained  in  contact  with 
the  earth,  spread  out  on  its  face,  while  the  lighter  vapors 
ascended,  finding  a home  in  the  clouds  above  the  expanse. 
This  was  plainly  designed  to  be  a permanent  arrangement. 
Hence  to  this  day  the  process  of  evaporation  goes  on,  sat- 
urating the  clouds  with  moisture,  which,  under  suitable 
conditions,  falls  to  the  earth  in  the  form  of  rain.  This 
evaporating  process  goes  on  with  uninterrupted  con- 
stancy, and  subserves  very  important  purposes. 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven  be 
gathered  together  into  one  place,  and  let  the  dry  land 
appear:  and  it  was  so.  And  God  called  the  dry  land 
Earth  ; and  the  gathering  together  of  the  waters  called  he 
Seas  : and  Go  I saw  that  it  was  good.  And  God  said,  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed  and  the 
fruit  tree  yielding  fruit  after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is 
in  itself,  upon  the  earth  : mid  it  was  so.  And  the  earth 
brought  forth  grass,  and  herb  yielding  seed  after  its  kind, 
and  the  tree  yielding  fruit,  whose  seed  was  in  itself,  aftei 
its  kind  : and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.  And  the  even- 
ing and  the  morning  were  the  third  day.”  Gen.  i.  9-13. 


120 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


Before  the  occurrences  of  the  third  day  the  world 
could  not  be  .properly  called  a terraqueous  globe.  The 
dry  land  did  not  appear.  The  gathering  together  of  the 
waters  into  distinct  places  involved,  of  course,  the  up- 
heaval of  certain  portions  of  the  earth.  This  was  done 
by  the  power  of  God.  The  dry  land  was  called  Earth,  and 
the  waters  when  they  filled  the  depressions  caused  by  the 
emergence  of  the  dry  land  were  called  Seas.  These  names 
are  as  appropriate  now  as  they  were  then.  The  earth  was 
commanded  to  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed, 
and  the  fruit  tree  with  seed  in  itself;  and,  being  endowed 
with  vegetative  power,  the  earth  obeyed  the  divine  fiat. 
By  these  remarkable  events  was  the  third  day  signal- 
ized. 

“ And  God  said,  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firmament  of 
the  heaven  to  divide  the  day  from  the  night ; and  let 
them  be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and 
years : and  let  them  be  for  lights  in  the  firmament  of  the 
heaven  to  give  light  upon  the  earth  : and  it  was  so.  And 
God  made  two  great  lights ; the  greater  light  to  rule  the 
day,  and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night:  he  made  the 
stars  also.  And  God  set  them  in  the  firmament  of  the 
heaven,  to  give  light  upon  the  earth,  and  to  rule  over  the 
day  and  over  the  night,  and  to  divide  the  light  from  the 
darkness  : and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.  And  the  even- 
ing and  the  morning  were  the  fourth  day.”  Gen.  i.  14- 
19 

Light,  as  we  have  seen,  was  created  on  the  first  day,  but 
on  the  fourth  day  the  sun  and  the  moon  were  placed  in 
the  heavens  as  luminaries,  or  light-bearers.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  in  the  sacred  narrative  the  sun  and  moon, 
though  evidently  referred  to,  are  not  named,  but  the  sun 
is  described  as  the  “ greater  ” and  the  moon  as  the  “ lesser 
light.”  We  may  supp  >se  that  the  light  created  on  the 


CREATION. 


121 


first  day  had  been  diffusing  itself,  modifying  and  reliev- 
ing chaotic  darkness,  until  the  fourth  day;  when  the  sun 
and  moon  were  made  its  depositories.  The  sun,  however, 
was  the  chief  depository,  for  it  is  well  known  that  the 
moon  shines  by  light  borrowed  from  the*  sun  and  reflect- 
ed on  the  earth. 

The  purpose  for  which  “the  two  great  lights”  were 
established  in  the  heavens  was  threefold : they  were  de- 
signed to  mark  a formal  division  “ between  the  day  and 
the  night;”  to  be  “for  signs  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days 
and  years ;”  and  also,  so  far  as  this  world  is  concerned,  to 
“give  light  upon  the  earth.”  They  have  been  performing 
their  office  for  nearly  six  thousand  years.  They  have 
divided  the  day  arid  the  night,  faithfully  answering  the 
purpose  of  their  creation  by  “ affording  signs  to  the  mari- 
ner to  aid  his  navigation  of  the  ocean ; to  the  husband- 
man to  guide  him  with  reference  to  the  proper  seasons  of 
sowing  and  reaping ; and  to  all  they  serve  as  the  grand 
regulators,  the  standard  measurers  of  our  time,  dividing  it 
into  days  and  months  and  years.”  The  sun  and  moon 
are  personified,  the  former  represented  as^ ruling  the  day, 
and  the  latter  the  night.  This  has  been  the  case  through 
all  the  centuries  of  time. 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abundantly 
the  moving  creature  that  hath  life,  and  fowl  that  may  fly 
above  the  earth  in  the  open  firmament  of  heaven.  And 
God  created  great  whales  and  every  living  creature  that 
moveth,  which  the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly  after 
their  kind,  and  every  winged  fowl  after  his  kind : and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good.  And  God  blessed  them,  say- 
ing, Be  fruitful  and  multiply,  and  fill  the  waters  in  the 
seas,  and  let  fowl  multiply  in  the  earth.  And  the  even- 
ing and  the  morning  were  the  fifth  day.”  Gen.  i.  20- 
23. 

li 


122 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


As  the  third  day  was  the  beginning  of  vegetable  life,  so 
the  fifth  day  was  distinguished  by  the  creation  of  animal 
life.  God  gave  the  waters  command  to  bring  forth  abun- 
dantly, even  to  swarm  with  living  creatures  ; and  it  was  so. 
He  created  “ great  whales,”  or  mighty  monsters  of  the 
sea,  and  the  innumerable  little  vital  forms  which  are  in- 
debted to  the  microscope  for  recognition,  with  all  the  inter- 
mediate grades  of  animal  existence.  Jehovah  is  properly 
termed  in  the  Saored  Scriptures  the  living  God,  for  he 
has  life  in  himself  and  is  the  source  of  life  to  all  creatures. 
While  the  waters  were  commanded  also  to  bring  forth 
fowl,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  “ God  created  every  winged 
fowl  after  its  kind,”  and  said,  as  we  read  in  the  margin  of 
our  Bibles,  “ let  fowl  fly  ” above  the  earth.  Thus  on  the 
fifth  day  were  created  inhabitants  of  the  waters  and  occu- 
pants of  the  earth. 

“And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  living 
creature  after  his  kind,  cattle,  and  creeping  thing,  and 
beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind : and  it  was  so.  And 
God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind,  and  cattle 
after  their  kind,  and  every  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the 
earth  after  his  kind  : and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.  And 
God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  like- 
ness ; and  let  them  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea, 
and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over 
all  the  earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth 
upon  the  earth.  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image, 
in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him  ; male  and  female 
created  he  them.  And  God  blessed  them,  and  God  said 
unto  them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the 
earth,  and  subdue  it : and  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of 
the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  every  living 
thing  that  moveth  upon  the  earth.  . . . And  God  saw 
every  thing  that  he  had  made,  and  behold,  it  was  very 


CREATION. 


123 


good.  And  the  evening  and  the  me  rning  were  the  sixth 
day.”  Gen.  i.  24-31. 

“ Cattle,  and  creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth  ” 
are  included  in  the  phrase  “living  creature.’  The  term 
“cattle”  may  be  regarded  as  the  representative  of  all  do- 
mestic animals ; “ creeping  thing  ” denotes  the  various 
orders  of  reptiles,;  while  “beasts  of  the  earth”  is  descrip- 
tive of  wild  animals  that  roam  over  the  earth. 

Thus  it  appears  that  while  “the  moving  creature”  and 
“the  fowl”  came  forth  from  the  waters,  “cattle,  and 
creeping  thing,  and  beast  ” are  of  the  earth,  that  is, 
were  formed  of  its  substance.  Still,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  the  waters  and  the  earth  had  no  creative 
power,  for  it  is  said  that  “ God  created  ” and  that  “ God 
made.”  The  creation  of  living  beings  as  well  as  of  in- 
animate matter  was  the  work  of  God. 

On  the  sixth  day  of  creation  man  was  brought  into 
existence.  He  was  made  in  the  image  of  God  after  the 
divine  likeness.  There  is  no  reference  to  a bodily  image, 
lor  God  is  a Spirit.  Man,  unlike  all  other  creatures  that 
took  the  places  assigned  them  on  the  land  and  in  the 
sea,  was  made  a rational  being,  and  in  this  sense  he  was 
created  in  the  image  of  God.  The  possession  of  ration- 
ality does  not,  however,  by  any  means  exhaust  the 
import  of  the  words  “in  our  image.”  They  are  in  the 
highest  sense  expressive  of  holiness.  We  therefore 
read  that  “ God  hath  made  man  upright.”  Eccl.  vii.  29. 
We  learn,  too,  that  regeneration  restores  fallen  man  to  the 
image  of  God,  which  image  consists  “ in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness.”  Eph.  iv.  24;  Col.  iii.  10, 

The  six  days  of  creation  have  now  passed  in  rapid 
review,  and  it  is  well  to  remember  that  in  the  giving  of 
the  law  on  Sinai  there  is  incorporated,  as  a reason  for 
observing  the  Sabbath  day,  this  language:  “For  in  six 


124 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all 
that  in  them  is,  and  rested  on  the  seventh  day.1’  Ex. 
xx.  11. 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  encumber  these  pages  with  any 
elaborate  reference  to  the  arguments  of  those  who  con- 
tend very  earnestly  that  the  six  days  of  creation  were  not 
six  natural  days,  but  six  periods  of  indefinite  duration, 
certainly  embracing  millions  of  years.  They  say  that 
the  term  day  often  denotes  an  era,  as  when  we  say  “the 
day  of  visitation,”  “the  day  of  salvation,”  “the  day  of 
judgment.”  It  is  true  that  in  these  forms  of  expression 
twenty-four  hours  are  not  meant.  But  who  ever  heard 
it  said  of  one  of  these  indefinite  periods  that  its  evening 
and  morning  constituted  it  a day  ? This,  however,  is  the 
record  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis : “ The  evening  and 
the  morning  were  the  first  day ;”  “ the  evening  and  the 
morning  were  the  second  day.”  That  the  half  of  a 
period  including  millions  of  years  should  be  called  the 
evening  of  that  period,  and  the  other  half  its  morning,  is 
utterly  incredible.  The  statement  of  this  view  seems  to 
me  its  exposure. 

The  view  of  Dr.  Chalmers  is  much  more  plausible.  It 
is  substantially  this:  that  the  first  verse  of  Genesis  is 
not  to  be  interpreted  in  immediate  connection  with 
the  verses  that  follow ; that  the  heaven  and  the  earth 
were  created  at  some  period  incalculably  remote;  and 
that  from  that  period  to  the  time  when  God  said  ‘Let 
there  be  light 5 the  earth  was  without  form  and  void. 
Then  it  is  supposed  that  God  began  to  arrange  in  order 
materials  which  had  been  created  before,  and  that  in  six 
natural  days  he  finished  this  work  of  adjustment,  mak- 
ing man  on  the  sixth  day,  and  committing  to  him  the 
lordship  of  the  earth.  This  view  is  far  less  objectionable 
than  the  preceling  one,  and  it  is  perhaps  generally  held 


CREATION. 


126 


by  those  who  consider  geology  an  established  science. 
After  all,  there  is  great  danger  of  “ darkening  counsel  by 
words  without  knowledge  ” on  a subject  so  incompre- 
hensible as  creation.  Surely  the  creative  acts  of  the 
Almighty  were  miracles.  He  might  have  performed 
them  all  in  a moment  had  he  chosen  to  do  so,  fof  who 
can  limit  his  power  ? It  was  his  pleasure  to  employ  six 
days  in  the  work  of  creation ; and  because  it  is  a miracle 
to  create,  it  is  easily  credible  that  the  six  days  of  Genesis 
were  natural  days.  At  any  rate,  those  who  hold  this 
opinion  should  not  be  reproached  with  weakness,  for 
their  interpretation  is  the  most  natural  one,  and  indeed 
no  other  would  have  been  heard  of  if  geology  had  not 
suggested  it. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  the  teaching  of  the  Bible 
concerning  the  purpose  of  creation  will  be  briefly  referred 
to.  The  following  passage  has  a manifest  bearing  on  the 
subject : “ Thou  art  worthy,  0 Lord,  to  receive  glory  and 
honor  and  power : for  thou  hast  created  all  things,  and 
for  thy  pleasure  they  are  and  were  created.”  Rev.  iv.  11. 
The  term  translated  pleasure  in  this  verse  literally  means 
will,  and  the  best  authorities  substitute  were  for  are.  Drs. 
Conant  and  Noyes  therefore  translate,  “ and  on  account 
of  thy  will  they  were,  and  were  created.”  The  creation 
of  all  things  is  here  traced  to  the  will  of  God.  They 
were  brought  into  existence  because  it  was  his  will  that 
they  should  exist ; they  were  created  because  it  was  his 
sovereign  pleasure  to  create  them.  The  will  of  God,  to 
which  creation  is  ascribed,  is  inseparable  from  his  glory. 
That  is,  God  in  willing  to  create  the  universe  designed 
thereby  to  promote  the  glory  of  his  own  name.  It  is 
needless,  and  indeed  it  would  be  untrue,  to  say  that  he 
had  no  other  object  in  view  ; but  manifestly  his  supreme 
purpose  was  the  glory  of  his  own  name.  All  other  pur- 
li  * 


126 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


poses  are  inferior  and  subordinate  to  this.  For  men  to 
seek  their  own  glory  is  selfish  and  culpable,  because  in 
this  case  they  seek  a low  and  insignificant  object;  where- 
as the  highest  and  most  important  object — namely,  the 
divine  glory — should  ever  be  had  in  view.  Hence  there 
is  a positive  command:  “ Do  all  to  the  glory  of  God.’5 
1 Cor.  x.  31.  But  how  is  it  with  God  himself?  The 
divine  intellect  in  the  boundless  range  of  its  contempla- 
tions finds  no  object  of  such  exalted  importance  as  the 
divine  glory,  and  God  is  therefore  under  the  blessed 
necessity  of  acting  with  a view  to  his  own  glory,  and  of 
subordinating  everything  to  its  promotion.  He  had  his 
glory  supremely  in  view  in  the  creation  of  all  things ; and 
as  the  purpose  of  creation  is  executed  in  providence  and 
redemption,  we  see  that  it  is  one  and  the  same.  We 
therefore  learn  from  the  Old  Testament  that  “ the  Lord 
Jehovah  hath  made  all  things  for  himself”  (Prov.  xvi.  4), 
and  that  his  glory  he  “ will  not  give  to  another  ” (Isa.  xlii. 
8);  while  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  said  of  Christ  that 
“ all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him.”  Col.  i. 
16.  The  statements  are  in  perfect  harmony,  because  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  is  the  Jesus  of  the  New  Testament. 
When  the  light  of  eternity  shines  on  us  and  clarifies  our 
vision,  we  shall  most  probably  see  that  the  work  of  crea- 
tion was  performed,  in  order  that  there  might  be  a theatre 
on  which  should  be  manifested  the  glories  of  redemption 
by  the  cross  of  Christ.  Here  I cannot  resist  my  inclina- 
tion to  quote  from  the  devout  Dr.  Edward  Payson : 1 
“ To  the  cross  of  Christ  all  eternity  has  looked  forward ; 
to  the  cross  of  Christ  all  eternity  will  look  back.  The 
cross  of  Christ  was,  if  I may  so  express  it,  the  first  object 
which  existed  in  the  divine  mind ; and  with  reference 
to  this  great  object  all  other  objects  were  created.  With 

1 Works , vol.  ii.  p.  50. 


CREATION. 


127 


reference  to  the  same  object  they  are  still  preserved. 
With  reference  to  the  same  object  every  event  that  takes 
place  in  heaven,  earth,  and  hell  is  directed  and  overruled. 
Surely,  then,  this  object  ought  to  engage  our  undivided 
attention.  We  ought  to  regard  this  world  merely  as  a 
stage  on  which  the  cross  of  Christ  was  to  be  erected  and 
the  great  drama  of  the  crucifixion  acted.  We  ought  to 
regard  all  that  it  contains  as  only  the  scenes  and  draperies 
necessary  for  its  exhibition.  We  ought  to  regard  the 
celestial  luminaries  merely  as  lamps,  by  the  light  of 
which  this  stupendous  spectacle  may  be  beheld.  We 
ought  to  view  angels,  men,  and  devils  as  subordinate 
actors  on  the  stage,  and  all  the  commotions  and  revolu- 
tions of  the  world  as  subservient  to  this  one  grand  design. 
Separate  any  part  of  this  creation,  or  any  event  that  has 
ever  taken  place,  from  its  relation  to  Christ,  and  it  dwindles 
into  insignificancy.  No  sufficient  reason  can  be  assigned 
for  its  existence,  and  it  appears  to  have  been  formed  in 
vain.  But  when  viewed  as  connected  with  him  every- 
thing becomes  important ; everything  then  appears  to 
be  a part  of  one  grand,  systematic,  harmonious  whole — a 
whole  worthy  of  him  that  formed  it.  It  was  such  a view 
of  things  which  led  the  apostle  to  exclaim,  ‘ God  forbid 
that  I should  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.’  ” 

This  extract  contains  the  seeds  of  thought,  and  the  fact 
that  all  things  were  created  for  Christ  requires  us  to  be- 
lieve that  the  work  of  creation  had  reference  to  the  glory 
of  God  in  redemption  through  the  cross.  The  more  we 
study  the  wonders  of  creation,  the  more  devoutly  shall 
we  say,  “ Great  and  marvellous  are  thy  works.  Lord  God 
Almighty.5  Rev  x^\  3. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


PRO  VIDENCE. 

Thai  God  created  all  things  by  his  power  and  for  his 
glory  may  be  considered  an  established  fact.  In  doing 
this  he  began,  as  already  stated,  to  execute  his  purposes 
and  his  plans,  but  there  was  only  a beginning.  Many 
divine  works  follow,  though  none  precede,  creation. 
What  is  commonly  called  Providence,  the  providence 
of  God,  is  suggested  by  creation,  and  may  be  inferred 
from  it.  For  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  God  takes 
care  of  that  which  he  wras  pleased  to  bring  into  exist- 
ence. This  is  a sufficient  answer  to  the  objection  urged, 
from  the  days  of  Epicurus  till  now,  against  the  provi- 
dence of  God  ; namely,  that  it  is  unworthy  of  God  to 
concern  himself  about  the  things,  and  especially  the  little 
things,  of  this  world.  It  cannot  be  unworthy  of  him  to 
care  for  that  which  it  was  not  unworthy  of  him  to  create. 
There  is  nothing  in  reason  to  justify  the  belief  that  God, 
having  performed  the  work  of  creation,  retired  into  the 
pavilion  of  his  glory,  giving  himself  no  concern  as  to 
what  should  become  of  the  workmanship  of  his  hands. 
Nor  is  there  anything  in  "the  Bible  to  countenance  this 
view.  So  far  from  it,  the  doctrine  of  providence  is  taught 
and  illustrated  from  Genesis  to  Revelation.  Indeed, 
should  we  take  from  the  Bible  all  that  it  says  of 
providence,  the  volume  would  be  greatly  lessened  and 
would,  in  truth,  become  another  book. 

1 28 


PROVIDENCE . 


129 


But  it  is  time  to  inquire,  What  is  embraced  in  the 
providence  of  God?  My  answer  is  threefold  : 

1.  The  preservation  of  what  he  has  made.  God  keeps  in 
being  what  he  was  pleased  to  create.  He  upholds  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  power.  Creation  and  preser- 
vation are  inseparable.  It  is  therefore  written  as  follows 
in  Neh.  ix.  6:  “Thou,  even  thou,  art  Lord  alone;  thou 
hast  made  heaven,  the  heaven  of  heavens,  with  all  their 
host,  the  earth,  and  all  things  that  are  therein,  the  seas, 
and  all  that  is  therein,  and  thou  preservest  them  all.”  In 
Job  vii.  20  God  is  recognized  as  the  “ Preserver  of  men,” 
and  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  6 we  read,  “ 0 Lord,  thou  preservest 
man  and  beast.”  In  preserving  his  creatures,  rational  and 
irrational,  God  provides  for  their  wants.  “These  wait  all 
upon  thee;  that  thou  mayest  give  them  their  meat  in  due 
season.  That  thou  givest  them  they  gather : thou  openest 
thine  hand,  they  are  filled  with  good.”  “ The  eyes  of  all 
wait  upon  thee,  and  thou  givest  them  their  meat  in  due 
season.  Thou  openest  thine  hand,  and  satisfiest  the  de- 
sire of  every  living  thing.”  “ He  giveth  to  the  beast  his 
food,  and  to  the  young  ravens  which  cry.”  Ps.  civ.  27,  28; 
cxlv.  15,  16 ; cxlvii.  9.  God’s  vital  power  so  pervades  the 
universe  that  “ in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our 
being.”  Acts  xvii.  28.  • I know  not  how  language  can  ex- 
press more  forcibly  the  idea  of  dependence  on  God  than 
do  the  words  of  Paul  in  his  discourse  to  the  Athenians. 
He  teaches  that  this  dependence  is  so  absolute  that  apart 
from  God  there  is  in  us  no  life,  no  motion,  no  existence. 
Manifestly,  this  is  true.  Separation  from  him  would  ex- 
tinguish the  mysterious  principle  called  life,  would  arrest 
all  motion,  and  put  an  end  to  existence.  In  short,  if  God’s 
sustaining  hand  were  withdrawn,  all  his  creatures  would 
sink  into  their  original  nothingness.  His  providence 
keeps  them  in  being.  He  preserves  his  rational  crea« 


130 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


tures,  his  friends  and  his  enemies,  his  irrational  crea- 
tures, from  the  huge  leviathan  to  the  tiny  insect,  and 
masses  of  inanimate  matter,  including  the  waters  of  the 
ocean  and  the  compacter  substances  of  the  solid  earth. 
Nor  is  God’s  work  of  providential  preservation  confined 
to  this  world.  It  extends  to  all  worlds. 

2.  The  cxii/'ol  of  v'hat  he  has  made . This  differs  from 
preservation,  though  it  includes  it.  God  exercises  domin- 
ion over  all  his  works.  Creation  gives  him  the  right  of 
control,  and  this  right  he  does  not  transfer.  All  things 
and  all  creatures  are  in  his  hands.  He  governs  the 
movements  of  every  planet  and  the  fall  of  every  sparrow. 
He  gives  light  to  the  sun  in  the  heavens  and  to  the  glow- 
worm on  the  earth  ; for  he  is  “ God  over  all,  blessed  for 
ever.” 

It  may  be  as  well  here  as  anywhere  to  refer  to  a matter 
about  which  there  has  ever  been  a difference  of  opinion ; 
and  in  doing  so  I quote  from  a distinguished  author  still 
living:  “ There  have  been  disputes  among  thinking  minds 
in  all  ages  as  to  whether  the  providence  of  God  is  general 
or  particular.  Philosophers,  so  called,  have  generally 
taken  the  former  view,  and  divines  the  latter.  These  two 
parties  have  contended  with  each  ether  as  fiercely  as  if 
there  had  been  a real  inconsistency  between  their  views. 
The  general  providence  of  God,  properly  understood, 
reaches  to  the  most  particular  and  minute  objects  and 
events;  and  the  particular  providence  of  God  becomes 
general  by  its  embracing  every  particular. 

“ Those  who  suppose  that  there  is  a general,  but  that 
then  cann  >t  be  a particular,  providence,  are  limiting 
God  by  ideas  derived  from  human  weakness.  The  great- 
est of  human  minds,  in  contemplating  important  ends, 
are  obliged  to  overlook  many  minor  events  falling  out  in- 
cidentally as  they  proceed  with  their  plane.  The  legis- 


PROVIDENCE. 


131 


lator,  for  instance,  is  sometimes  under  the  necessity  of 
disregarding  the  temporary  misery  which  the  changes  in- 
troduced by  him,  and  which  are  advantageous  as  a whole, 
may  bring  along  with  them.  In  short,  in  attending  to 
the  general,  man  must  often  overlook  the  particular.  But 
we  are  not  to  suppose  that  an  infinite  God — infinite  in  his 
power,  his  wisdom,  and  resources,  and  present  through 
all  his  works— is  laid  under  any  such  inability  to  attend 
to  particular  events  because  he  is  also  superintending  em- 
pires and  worlds^  The  pains,  if  we  may  so  speak,  which 
God  has  taken  to  beautify  every  leaf  and  flower,  nay, 
every  weed  that  we  trample  under  foot — the  new  beauties 
unseen  by  the  naked  eye  which  the  microscope  discloses 
in  the  vegetable  kingdom  and  the  beautiful  organization 
of  the  insect  world — all  show  that  the  greatness  of  God 
is  peculiarly  seen  in  the  care  which  he  takes  of  objects 
the  most  minute. 

“ On  the  other  hand,  they  take  a most  unworthy  view 
of  the  divine  character  who  conclude  that  his  attention  is 
exclusively  directed  to  a few  favorite  objects,  in  which 
they  themselves  possibly  feel  a special  interest.  Here, 
again,  we  discover  the  tendency  of  mankind  to  measure 
God  by  standards  derived  from  human  infirmity.  It 
not  unfrequently  happens  that  the  minute  man,  who 
manages  with  care  and  kindness  his  own  affairs  and 
those  of  his  family,  has  no  very  enlarged  views  or  feel- 
ings of  general  philanthropy.  Taking  such  a model  as 
this,  there  are  piously-disposed  minds  who  would  make 
God  ‘altogether  such  an  one  as  themselves,’  and  conceiv- 
ing it  to  be  impossible  for  him,  in  the  attention  which  he 
must  pay  to  certain  objects,  to  provide  for  the  wants  of 
all  his  creatures,  they  would  praise  him  because,  in  tho 
exercise  of  what  would  truly  be  a weak  favoritism,  he  is 
supposed  to  pass  by  and  disregard  the  whole  world  in  tlia 


132 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


extraordinary  care  which  he  takes  of  persons  who  are  the 
special  objects  of  his  regard^ 

“ In  the  government  of  this  world  the  individual  is  not 
lost  in  the  general  on  the  one  hand,  nor  is  the  general  ne- 
glected in  the  attention  to  the  individual  on  the  other 
hand.  No  creature,  no  object,  however  insignificant,  has 
been  overlooked.  The  general  includes  every  individual, 
which.  finds  accordingly  its  appropriate  place.  Provision 
has  been  made  for  all  and  for  each  in  the  grand  system 
of  the  universe.” 1 

In  view  of  the  subject  itself,  and  of  the  way  in  which 
it  is  presented  in  this  quotation,  it  may  be  safely  said 
that  a general  and  a particular  providence  so  involve 
each  other  that  the  one  cannot  exist  without  the  other. 
Generals  imply  particulars,  and  particulars  are  included 
in  generals.  I may  therefore  repeat  that  God’s  provi- 
dence comprehends  his  control  of  what  he  has  made.  It 
embraces,  too— 

3.  The  ordering  of  all  events.  Of  these  events,  so  far  as 
we  are  personally  concerned,  we  may  notice : 

(A.)  The  time  and  place  of  our  birth.  If  we  ask  why 
we  were  not  born  five  thousand  years  ago  or  one  th(  u- 
sand  years  ago ; why  we  were  not  brought  into  being  dur- 
ing the  patriarchal  age  or  under  the  Mosaic  economy,  but 
under  the  Christian  dispensation, — the  only  answer  is,  The 
Lord  so  ordered  it.  He  decided  the  time  of  our  birth,  the 
period  at  which  we  should  make  our  appearance  on  the 
theatre  of  human  action  to  fulfil  our  appointed  destiny. 
It  is  obvious  that  we  were  not  consulted,  and  that  we  had 
no  agency  in  the  matter.  Everything  was  in  the  hands 
of  God  and  under  the  control  of  his  provic  ence.  If  we 
inquire  why  we  descended  from  Asiatic  or  European  or 
African  or  American  ancestors,  the  same  answer  must 
1 McCosh,  The  Divine  Government,  pp.  196-198. 


PROVIDENCE 


133 


be  returned,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  no  other  answer 
can  be  given.  He  who  watches  the  fall  of  every  sparrow 
determines  the  birthplace  of  every  human  being.  If  we 
wish  to  know  why  we  were  born  amid  the  splendors  of 
wealth  or  the  comforts  of  competency  or  the  privations 
of  poverty,  it  can  only  be  said  that  God  willed  it.  If  we 
institute  investigations  as  to  differences  in  color,  and  other 
natural  distinctions  coeval  with  birth,  our  researches  must 
end  in  the  belief  that  there  is  an  overruling  providence. 
It  is  unquestionable  that  God,  either  by  his  efficient  or 
permissive  decree,  decided  the  time,  the  place,  and  the 
circumstances  of  our  birth. 

(B.)  Occurrences  during  life.  These  are  more  or  less 
numerous  in  the  history  of  every  person.  It  is  estimated 
that  about  one-half  of  the  human  race  die  in  infancy. 
This  fact,  in  some  of  its  aspects,  is  distressing  and  appal- 
ling, yet,  all  things  considered,  it  is  doubtless  wisely  or- 
dered. If  there  is  anything  on  earth  that  agonizes  the 
hearts  of  loving  parents,  it  is  the  pale  face  of  a speechless 
infant  tortured  by  disease,  looking  imploringly  for  help, 
and  utterly  unable  to  give  an  intimation  of  what  would 
give  relief,  the  weeping  parents  meanwhile  as  powerless 
to  aid  as  if  they  were  a thousand  miles  away.  The  mul- 
titudinous deaths  of  infants  occur  under  the  mysterious 
and  adorable  providence  of  God.  As  to  persons  who 
reach  mature  years,  how  different  their  conditions!  A 
few  are  rich,  many  have  a comfortable  sufficiency,  but 
the  great  majority  are  poor.  Some  who  were  poor  have 
become  rich,  and  some  who  were  rich  have  been  plunged 
into  the  depths  of  poverty.  Some  are  always  poor  and 
diseased,  not  knowing,  it  may  be,  the  luxury  of  a cradle 
in  infancy,  not  spending  a painless  day  during  life,  and 
indebted  to  charity  for  a decent  burial. 

Some  are  placed  in  circumstances  which  enable  them 
12 


134 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


to  acquire  education  and  intelligence.  Knowledge  opens 
to  them  its  ample  treasures,  and  they  revel  amid  intel- 
lectual delights.  Others  are  uncultivated  and  ignorant, 
and  scarcely  make  an  effort  to  rise  above  their  “low  es- 
tate.” Their  mental  impulses  are  not  strong  enough  to 
stimulate  them  to  the  pursuit  of  knowledge.  Alas  for 
them ! yet  in  one  sense  it  may  be  well  for  them  that  they 
do  l-i °»t  know  the  wretched  disabilities  of  their  condition. 

(C.)  The  time  and  place  of  death.  Of  the  time  wTe 
may  speak  with  certainty,  and  yet  indefinitely.  We 
know  that  it  will  soon  come.  “ As  for  man,  his  days  are 
as  grass  ” (Ps.  ciii.  15)  ; “ It  is  appointed  unto  men  once 
to  die.”  Heb.  ix.  27.  The  appointment  is  inevitable  and 
universal.  The  stroke  of  mortality  falls  on  all  “ born  of 
women.”  But  we  cannot  tell  when  it  will  fall  on  us.  It 
might  gratify  our  curiosity  to  know,  but  it  would  be  of  no 
practical  benefit.  Whether  we  shall  die  at  the  expiration  of 
a day,  a week,  a month,  a year,  or  ten  years,  or  twenty  years, 
we  cannot  tell ; so  that  while  death  is  certain,  the  time  when 
we  shall  die  is  hidden  in  the  mysteries  of  the  future.  We 
are  ignorant,  too,  as  to  the  place  where  we  shall  draw  our 
last  breath.  Though  we  may  wish  to  die  at  home  and 
among  our  kindred,  God  in  his  providence  may  order  it 
otherwise.  W e may  die  among  strangers,  in  our  own  coun- 
try or  in  a foreign  land,  with  no  familiar  face  to  watch  the 
dying  struggle  and  no  hand  of  kindred  to  wipe  the  sweat  of 
death  from  the  pale  brow.  We  might  prefer  to  die  on  the 
land,  yet  we  may  die  on  the  sea,  the  pulse  beating  its  last 
throb  amid  the  majestic  roar  of  ocean  waves.  It  may  be  our 
desire  to  die  with  some  intimation,  in  the  form  of  disease 
or  other  bodily  infirmity,  that  death  is  at  hand ; but  God’s 
plan  may  require  that  we  die  suddenly  and  without  a mo- 
ment’s warning.  Great  as  our  preference  may  be  to  die  what 
is  called  a natural  death,  we  may  be  hurried  into  eternity 


PROVIDENCE. 


135 


by  some  unexpected  casualty.  In  short  the  time  and  place 


and  circumstances  of  our  death  are  as  certainly  under  the 
providence  of  God  as  were  those  of  our  birth.  To  him 
the  time  when  and  the  place  where  we  shall  die,  and  all  the 
surrounding  circumstances,  are  full}7  known.  Everything 
pertaining  to  us — birth,  death  and  all  intermediate  events 
— is  under  the  direction  of  God,  who  “ doeth  according  to 
his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  earth.”  Dan.  iv.  35. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  it  is  well  to  notice  two 
additional  points:  ' ** 

1.  The  doctrine  of  pftfmclence  is  full  of  consolation  w the 
saints.  They  are  assured  that  the  world,  that  the  universe, 
is  not  under  the  dominion  of  unreasoning  Fate  or  blind 
Chance.  Many  of  the  old  philosophers  adopted  the  one 
or  the  other  of  these  views.  While  some  of  them  believed 
in  “gods  many  and  lords  many,”  they  at  the  same  time 
believed  these  gods  and  lords  to  be  controlled  in  all  their 
acts  by  a fate  as  irresistible  by  them  as  by  men.  Others 
ascribed  everything  to  chance.  They  supposed  the  world 
itself  to  be  the  result  of  a fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms, 
and  that  everything  taking  place  in  it  must  be  as  acci- 
dental as  its  formation.  There  is  no  comfort  in  either  of 
these  views.  Fate  and  chance  are  impersonal  things. 
There  is  neither  life  nor  intelligence  in  them.  We  need  a 
personal  God  on  the  throne  of  the  universe,  infinite  in 
wisdom  and  goodness  and  power.  Such  a God  the  Bible 
reveals,  and  such  a God  his  people  worship.  He  is  ever 
able  to  help  them  ; “ For  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  run  to  and 
fio  throughout  the  whole  earth,  to  shew  himself  strong  in 
the  behalf  of  them  wThose  heart  is  perfect  toward  him.” 
2 Chron.  xvi.  19. 

The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  in  every  place,  and  where  his 
eyes  are,  there  is  his  omnipotent  arm  to  protect.  Lov<a 


136 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


and  wisdom  control  that  arm,  and  its  power  is  exerted  in 
the  interests  of  his  saints ; “ For  the  Lord  God  is  a sun 
and  shield : the  Lord  will  give  grace  and  glory  : no  good 
thing  will  he  withhold  from  them  that  walk  uprightly  ” 
(Ps.  lxxxiv.  11)  ; “ And  we  know  that  all  things  work  to- 
gether for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  to  them  who  are 
the  called  according  to  his  purpose.”  Rom.  viii.  28.  What 
thought  can  be  to  the  servants  of  God  more  replete  with 
joy  than  this,  that  he  sits  on  his  throne,  wielding  a uni- 
versal sceptre,  and  with  infinite  ease  making  all  things 
work  together  for  the  good  of  those  who  love  him?  The 
Christian  in  the  profoundest  depths  of  adversity  may 
ever  extract  comfort  from  this  precious  truth. 

2.  There  will  be  a solution  of  the  mysteries  of  providence . 
Nothing  is  more  true  than  that  now  we  “know  in  part.” 
The  present  state  of  being  is  imperfect,  unfinished,  and 
needs  to  be  supplemented  by  the  future  and  final  state. 
When  this  is  done  we  “ shall  know  even  as  also  we  are 
known.”  1 Cor.  xiii.  9.  But  now  many  of  the  works  of 
providence  are  involved  in  obscurity  and  darkness.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  : “ He  holdeth  back  the  face 
of  his  throne,  and  spreadeth  his  cloud  upon  it.”  “ Thy 
way  is  in  the  sea,  and  thy  path  in  the  great  wTaters,  and 
thy  footsteps  are  not  known.”  “ Clouds  and  darkness  are 
round  about  him.”  “ What  I do  thou  knowest  not  now, 
but  thou  shalt  know  hereafter.”  Job  xxvi.  9;  Ps.  lxxvii. 
19 ; xcvii.  2 ; John  xiii.  7.  Dark  providences  have  often 
put  the  faith  of  God’s  people  to  the  severest  test.  Jacob 
said  of  his  trials,  “ All  these  things  are  against  me.”  Gen. 
xiii.  36.  The  Psalmist  was  so  perplexed  by  the  prosperity 
of  the  wicked  that  in  a moment  of  despondency  he  said, 
“Verily  I have  cleansed  my  heart  in  vain.”  Ps.  lxxiii.  13. 
The  perplexity  of  Jeremiah  was  in  substance  the  same : 
“ Righteous  art  thou,  0 Lord,  when  I plead  with  thee  * 


PRO  VI PENCE. 


137 


yet  let  me  talk  with  thee  of  thy  judgments : Wherefore 
do  the  wicked  prosper  ? Wherefore  are  all  they  happy 
that  deal  very  treacherously?”  Jer.  xii.  1.  Even  the  pious 
martyred  dead  are  represented  as  crying,  “ How  long,  0 
Lurd,  holy  and  true,  dost  thou  not  judge  and  avenge 
our  blood  on  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth  ?”  Rev.  vi.  10. 

Jacob  in  his  lifetime  saw  the  mistake  he  had  made — 
saw  that  the  things  were  for  him  which  he  supposed  to  be 
against  him — saw  that  the  selling  of  Joseph  by  his  broth- 
ers into  slavery  would  be  overruled  for  the  preservation 
of  the  chosen  race.  We  may  safely  say,  however,  that 
the  solution  of  most  dark  providences  is  transferred  and 
deferred  to  the  future  state.  But  the  solution'  when  it 
comes  will  be  not  only  a satisfactory,  but  a triumphant, 
vindication  of  the  ways  of  God.  It  will  then  be  seen  that 
justice  and  judgment  were  ever  the  habitation  and  the 
basis  of  his  throne.  The  trials  of  the  saints,  which  now 
often  crush  their  spirits  and  break  their  hearts,  will  then 
call  forth  their  rapturous  hallelujahs.  Then  will  it  be  seen 
that  their  “ light  affliction,  which  is  but  for  a moment, 
worketh  for  us  a far  more  exceeding  and  eternal  weight 
of  glory.”  2 Cor.  iv.  17.  It  will  be  one  of  the  delightful 
employments  of  eternity  to  contemplate  the  wonders  of 
God’s  providence,  and  see  how  good  was  educed  from  evil, 
order  from  confusion,  peace  from  trouble,  and  glory  from 
gloom.  This  cannot  be  seen  now,  for 

/“Blind  unbelief  is  sure  to  err, 

And  scan  his  work  in  vain 
God  is  his  own  interpreter, 

And  he  will  make  it  plain.” 

Yes,  so  plain  that  there  will  reverberate  throughout  the 
heavenly  mansions  evermore  the  w )rds,  “IIe  hath  done 

ALL  THINGS  WELL.” 


CHAPTER  X. 


ANGELS. 

In  preceding  chapters  there  have  been  incidental  allu- 
sions to  an  order  of  beings  caLed  anyth.  They  are  sub- 
jects of  the  divine  government,  and  the  part  they  act  in 
the  history  of  man  renders  it  proper  to  make  special 
reference,  to  them.  Their  existence  is  everywhere  taken 
for  granted  in  the  Scriptures ; and  while  they  are  several 
times  spoken  of  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  they  are  more 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Revelation.  To  at- 
tempt to  prove,  therefore,  that  angels  exist,  would  be 
superfluous  and  uncalled  for. 

The  term  angel , in  its  literal  import,  suggests  the  idea 
of  office — the  office  of  a messenger,  rather  than  the  nature 
of  the  messenger.  Hence  wre  read  in  Luke  vii.  24,  “ And 
when  the  messengers  of  John  [in  the  original  Greek,  the 
angels  of  John]  were  departed.”  It  seems  that  when  the 
Bible  was  written  it  was  so  common  for  some  superior 
spiritual  being  to  be  divinely  sent  as  messenger  to  man 
that  such  being  was  in  process  of  time  called  angel,  that 
is,  messenger.  It  is  easy,  too,  to  see  that  the  order  of  be- 
ings to  which  the  messenger  belonged  would  likewise  be 
called  angels.  The  term  angel , being  used  to  designate  a 
spirit  bearing  a message,  would  also  be  employed  a?  de- 
scriptive of  kindred  spirits,  even  though  they  might  not 
be  appointed  to  bear  messages.  Thus  the  heaven1)7  hosts 

138 


ANGELS. 


139 


are  termed  angels,  though  it  may  be  that  comparatively 
few  of  their  vast  numbers  are  engaged  in  the  delivery  of 
messages.  But  this  is  a point  on  which  it  is  needless  to 
dwell  at  length. 

While  the  word  angels  is  sometimes  used  in  a specific 
sense  to  denote  a part  of  the  inhabitants  of  heaven,  as  in 
1 Pet.  iii.  22,  I assume  that  it  is  usually  employed  in  a 
general  sense  as  designating  all  the  inhabitants  of  heaven, 
with  the  exception  of  the  redeemed  from  among  mep.  It 
will  therefore  be  unnecessary  to  refer  specially  to  “ cheru- 
bim,” “ seraphim,”  “ principalities,”  “ powers,”  “ author- 
ities.” Doubtless  these  terms  are  significant,  but  I shall 
regard  them  as  embraced  in  the  general  term  angels. 
This  view  of  the  matter  makes  plain  the  meaning  of 
Luke  xv.  10 : “ Likewise  I say  unto  you,  there  is  joy  in 
the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God  over  one  sinner  that 
repenteth.”  No  one  can  suppose  that  the  joy  in  heaven 
over  a repenting  sinner  is  so  confined  to  angels  as  to  ex- 
clude cherubim,  seraphim,  and  others  of  the  heavenly 
host  from  participation  in  it. 

Of  angels  the  following  observations  may  be  made : 

1.  They  are  immortal  spirits.  The  term  spirit  may  be  re- 
garded in  general  contrast  wfith  matter.  The  two  sub- 
stances embrace  all  the  objects  to  be  found  in  the  wide 
realm  of  knowledge.  There  is  no  substance  of  which  it 
can  be  said  that  it  is  neither  matter  nor  spirit.  The  world 
of  matter  is  all  around  us.  We  see  it  in  the  earth  and  its 
productions,  in  the  sea  and  its  treasures,  in  the  sun  and 
the  'planets  revolving  round  him.  Our  senses  bring  us 
into  contact  with  the  universe  of  material  nature,  and 
we  hear,  and  see,  and  smell,  and  touch,  and  taste.  It  is 
manifest,  too,  that  matter  is  capable  of  great  changes.  It 
may  be  fashioned  into  many  forms  and  taken  through 
many  processes  of  refinement.  Gold  may  be  purified 


140 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


seven  times — that  is,  purified  to  perfection — till  ever}5 
particle  of  dross  is  taken  from  it;  and  the  diamond  by 
laborious  and  persevering  effort  may  be  fitted  to  sparkle 
in  a monarch’s  crown;  but  no  operation  performed  on 
matter,  and  no  series  of  operations,  can  endowT  it  with 
thought,  and  will,  and  reflection.  These  are  peculiarities 
of  mind  or  spirit,  and  where  they  are  found  there  is 
spiiit  They  are  found  in  angels,  and  angels  are  spirits. 
They  are  in  perfect  contrast  with  matter,  whether  in  its 
grosser  or  more  refined  forms.  They  are  spiritual  beings, 
and  we,  burdened  with  the  encumbrances  of  matter,  can 
very  imperfectly  imagine  what  they  are. 

While  we  regard  spirit  in  general  contrast  with  matter, 
we  may  consider  it  in  particular  contrast  with  body.  The 
words  of  Jesus  authorize  us  to  do  this:  “Handle  me,  and 
see ; for  a spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me 
have.”  Luke  xxiv.  39.  This  language  wTas  addressed  to 
the  disciples  when  they  were  in  great  fear.  To  relieve 
their  minds,  excited  and  alarmed  by  the  supposition  that 
they  were  in  the  presence  of  a spirit,  he  said,  “ Handle 
me,  and  see.”  They  were  by  personal  examination  to 
assure  themselves  that  he  had  “ flesh  and  bones,”  and  this 
was  to  be  decisive  of  the  point  that  he  was  not  a spirit. 
A body,  we  know,  has  “ flesh  and  bones,”  for  they  are  so 
essential  to  it  that  there  can  be  no  body  without  them. 
Here,  then,  the  words  of  Jesus  place  spirit  and  body  in 
mqst  positive  contrast.  Tt  follows,  therefore,  that  as  angels 
are  spirits,  as  we  are  taught  in  Heb.  i.  7,  they  are  with- 
out bodies.  Many  suppose  that  they  are  capable  of  as- 
suming bodies  or  something  equivalent  at  pleasure,  and 
that  this  is  necessary  to  the  performance  of  acts  ascribed 
in  the  Bible  to  their  agency.  Such  a supposition,  how- 
ever, may  have  no  other  basis  than  the  fact  that  men  are 
accustomed  to  exert  their  power  through  their  bodily  or- 


ANGELS. 


141 


gans  and  by  material  mediums.  It  surely  does  not  follow 
that  the  same  limitations  are  placed  on  angelic  power;  or, 
if  this  is  the  case,  may  we  not  inquire  as  to  the  nature  of 
supreme  power  in  God  ? Who  will  say  that  his  power 
cannot  be  exerted  unless  a body  furnishes  the  means  by 
which  it  is  done  ? I refer  the  reader  to  the  first  chapter 
of  this  work  in  proof  of  the  fact  that  spirit  is  the  original 
residence  of  power.  Having  referred  to  matter  and  spir- 
it, it  is  proper  to  say  that  ^e  know  nothing  as  to  thd 
essence  of  either.  Our  knowledge  of  the  two  sub- 
stances is  confined  to  what  can  be  known  of  their 
properties.  Acquainted  with  the  properties  of  matter, 
we  can  affirm  or  deny  certain  things  concerning  it; 
knowing  the  properties  of  spirit,  we  can  also  affirm  or 
deny.  This  is  all  we  can  do. 

Angels  are  immortal  spirits.  If  asked  why  they  are  im- 
mortal, I can  only  say  that  their  immortality  is  to  be  as- 
cribed to  the  good  pleasure  of  God.  They  are  not  neces- 
sarily immortal  because  they  are  spirits.  Spirits  would 
as  certainly  die  as  do  bodies,  if  God  should  withdraw  his 
sustaining  arm.  In  the  absolute  and  highest  sense  of  the 
words  God  u only  hath  immortality,  dwelling  in  the  light 
which  no  man  can  approach  unto.”  1 Tim.  vi.  16.  The 
immortality  of  angels  and  men  is  derived  from  him  and 
dependent  on  his  will.  Angels  are  immortal,  because  God 
lias  made  them  so.  They  will  never  cease  to  be,  because 
it  is  not  the  divine  will  that  they  return  to  their  original 
nothingness.  The  words  of  Jesus  shed  important  light 
on  the  immortality  of  angels.  Speaking  of  the  righteous 
dead  at  the  resurrection,  he  says,  “ Neither  can  they  die 
any  more : for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels ; and  .are 
the  children  of  God,  being  the  children  of  the  resurrec- 
tion.” Luke  xx.  36.  It  is  clear  that  the  equality  specially 
referred  to  is  the  impossibility  of  dying : “ Neither  can 


142  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 

they  die  any  more.”  For  this  reason  they  are  equal  to 
the  angels,  and,  like  the  angels,  incapable  of  death.  It  is 
a pleasing  thought  that  angelic  spirits  will  live  for  ever. 
They  are  engaged  in  the  worship  and  service  of  God,  and 
he  deserves  everlasting  worship  and  service.  They  are 
students  of  the  wonders  of  redemption  (1  Pet.  i.  12),  and 
these  wonders  invite  endless  exploration.  Angelic  re- 
search will  be  prosecuted  for  ever. 

2.  Angels  possess  great  knowledge.  All  who  believe  in 
their  existence  accord  to  them  intelligence  and  wisdom  of 
a high  order.  The  common  belief  among  the  Jews  in  the 
days  of  David  can  no  doubt  be  learned  from  the  four- 
teenth chapter  of  the  second  book  of  Samuel.  Joab, 
anxious  for  Absalom’s  return  to  Jerusalem,  sent  “a  wise 
woman  of  Tekoah  ” to  David,  hoping  through  her  agency 
to  accomplish  the  object.  The  only  thing,  however,  that 
has  a bearing  on  the  point  now  under  consideration  is 
the  following  language  addressed  to  David:  “For  as  an 
angel  of  God,  so  is  my  lord  the  king  to  discern  good  and 
bad;”  “And  my  lord  is  wise,  according  to  the  wisdom 
of  an  angel  of  God,  to  know  all  things  that  are  in  the 
earth.”  Here  it  is  assumed  that  an  angel  of  God  is  wise 
and  endowed  with  superior  knowledge.  Nor  is  it  strange 
that  the  history  of  God’s  favored  people  from  the  days 
of  Abraham  encouraged  and  confirmed  this  view.  There 
had  been  frequent  angelic  interpositions,  the  natural 
effect  of  which  was  to  create  the  beiief  that  angels  excel 
in  wisdom  as  well  as  in  strength.  Their  superiority  to 
men  is  conceded,  and  the  point  needs  not  to  be  argued. 
They  were,  no  doubt,  created  intelligent  spirits,  their 
knowledge  beginning  with  their  existence.  This  being 
the  case,  we  can  understand  why  they,  as  “ sons  of  God, 
shouted  for  joy  ” when  the  foundations  of  the  earth  were 
laid,  £is  we  are  most  probably  taught  in  Job  xxxviii.  7 


ANGELS. 


143 


They,  as  intelligent  creatures,  appreciated  the  power  and 
wisdom  of  God  displayed  in  the  formation  of  the  globe 
knowing  that  it  would  serve  as  a theatre  for  the  exhibi- 
tion of  the  divine  glory.  Hence  their  gladness  and  their 
shouts  of  joy.  But  if  the  knowledge  of  angels  was 
coeval  with  their  creation,  we  may  safely  conclude  that 
it  has  been  increasing  ever  since.  Their  opportunities  of 
observation,  and  the  many  experiences  they  have  had  in 
connection,  as  we  may  suppose,  with  direct  revelations 
from  God,  must  have  added  greatly  to  the  stock  of  their 
original  intelligence.  They  are  finite  beings,  and  their 
knowledge  is  therefore  imperfect;  and  if  imperfect,  pro- 
gressive. The  knowledge  of  God  cannot  be  augmented, 
because  he  is  infinite;  the  knowledge  of  angelic  spirits 
is  susceptible  of  increase,  because  they  are  finite.  If 
this  one  part  of  angelic  history — namely,  constant  im- 
provement in  knowledge — could  be  written,  how  full  of 
interest  would  it  be ! We  know  full  well  that  angels  have 
never  been  unconcerned  spectators  of  the  works  and 
ways  of  God ; and  what  centuries  of  opportunity  have 
they  had  to  learn  about  divine  things ! Their  knowledge 
was  increased  before  the  Flood,  and  received  new  acces- 
sions when  the  human  race  was,  with  the  exception  of 
one  family,  exterminated  from  the  earth.  They  learned 
much  more  from  Abrahamic  and  Jewish  history,  scanned 
the  page  of  prophecy,  and  when  in  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
the  Saviour  was  born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judea,  while  one 
of  their  number  announced  the  fact  to  astonished  shep- 
herds, a multitude  of  the  heavenly  host  shouted,  “ Glory  to 
God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good  will  toward 
men.”  Luke  ii.  14.  From  the  birth  of  Christ  till  now 
angels  have  watched  and  cherished  the  interests  of  his 
religion,  learning  more  anc  more  concerning  the  achieve- 
ments of  redemption,  and  looking  forward  with  devout 


[44 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES, 


anxiety  to  the  day  when  the  earth  shall  be  filled  with 
truth,  righteousness,  and  salvation.  Truly,  angels  possess 
great  knowledge. 

8.  They  are  very  active  and  powerful.  To  give  us  some 
faint  idea  of  the  rapidity  of  their  movements,  the  sacred 
writers  represent  them  as  having  wings,  and  as  flying  on 
their  errands  to  execute  the  commands  of  the  Almighty. 
These  forms  of  expression  are  not  to  be  understood  liter- 
ally; for  wings,  and  flight  by  means  of  wings,  pertain  to 
material  beings,  and  we  have  seen  that  angels  are  pure 
spirits.  Of  all  creatures  coming  within  the  range  of  our 
vision,  those  which  have  wings  and  fly,  exemplify  the 
highest  speed.  Angelic  activity  is,  therefore,  very  im- 
pressively taught  by  the  figurative  language  referred  to. 
There  must,  however,  be  a basis  and  a reason  for  the  use 
of  this  figurative  language,  and  they  are  to  be  found  in 
the  velocity  of  angelic  movement.  Here,  again,  our  con- 
ceptions fail ; for,  as  physical  motion  alone  comes  within 
the  circle  of  our  knowledge,  we  cannot  possibly  say  what 
is  the  nature  of  the  movement  by  which  a spirit  goes 
from  one  place  to  another.  There  is  transition  from 
locality  to  locality,  but  who  can  explain  it  or  conceive 
it?  We  only  know  that  it  must  be  inexpressibly  rapid. 
In  proof  of  this  I may  refer  to  the  words  of  Jesus  on 
the  night  of  his  agony  and  arrest : “ Thinkest  thou  that 
I cannot  now  pray  to  my  Father,  and  he  shall  presently 
give  me  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels?”  Mitt.  xxvi. 

, 53.  The  words  were  addressed  to  Peter  to  show  him 
that  his  feeble  help  was  not  needed  in  that  hour,  for 
more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  would  be  sent  to  his 
rescue  if  the  divine  plans  did  not  forbid  their  interference. 
But  the  thought  to  be  emphasized  in  the  passage  is  that 
bo  many  angels,  their  supposed  residence  being  in  heaven, 
could  instantly  appear  in  defence  of  their  Lord.  How 


ANGELS. 


145 


these  legions  of  angels  could  pass  with  more  than  tele- 
graphic rapidity  from  heaven  to  sad  Gethsemane,  we 
know  not.  We  only  know  that  the  possibility  of  the 
thing  indicates  an  activity  truly  wonderful. 

There  is  also  a passage  in  the  book  of  Daniel  to  which 
reference  may  be  made:  “Yea,  while  I was  speaking  in 
prayer,  even  the  man  Gabriel,  whom  I had  seen  in  the 
vision  at  the  beginning,  being  caused  to  fly  swiftly, 
touched  me  about  the  time  of  the  evening  oblation.’5 
Dan.  ix.  21.  Here  there  was  such  velocity  of  movement 
as  defies  conception.  The  movement  of  Gabriel  was 
actual,  real,  whereas  the  movement  of  the  “more  than 
twelve  legions  of  angels  ” was  potential,  possible.  The 
two  passages  prove  beyond  doubt  the  amazing  activity 
of  angelic  spirits. 

Angels,  too,  are  powerful.  They  are  said  to  “excel  in 
strength.”  Ps.  ciii.  20.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  they 
possess  inherent  strength.  They  do  not.  They  have  the 
power  that  God  gives  them,  for  power  in  the  highest 
sense  of  the  -word  belongs  to  him  alone.  It  has  been 
his  pleasure  to  endow7  angelic  spirits  with  such  powder 
as  has  often  appeared  wonderful  to  men.  For  exam- 
ple, it  seems  evident  that  an  angel  had  control  of 
the  pestilence  which  in  the  days  of  David  destroyed 
“seventy  thousand  men;”  for  we  read,  “And  when  the 
angel  stretched  out  his  hand  upon  Jerusalem  to  destroy 
it,  the  Lord  repented  him  of  the  evil,  and  said  to  the 
angel  that  destroyed  the  people,  It  is  enough : stay  now 
thine  hand.”  2 Sam.  xxiv.  16.  Another  striking  display 
of  angelic  povrer  is  recorded  in  connection  with  the 
army  of  Sennacherib,  king  cf  Assyria.  The  impious 
monarch  threatened  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but 
it  is  said,  “ And  it  came  to  pass  that  night,  that  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  wrent  out,  and  smote  in  the  camp  of 

13 


146 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


the  Assyrians  a hundred  four  score  and  five  thousand.’1 
2 Kings  xix.  35;  Isa.  xxxvii.  36.  This  was  a fearful 
exhibition  of  the  power  of  an  angelic  spirit.  He  smote 
with  an  invisible  weapon,  and  a hundred  and  eighty- 
five  thousand  warriors  fell  before  him.  Having  read 
these  accounts  from  the  Old  Testament,  we  are  prepared 
for  the  following  in  the  New : “ And  after  these  things 
I saw  another  angel  come  down  from  heaven,  having 
great  power;  and  the  earth  was  lightened  with  his  glory  ;’ 

“ And  a mighty  angel  took  up  a stone  like  a great  mill- 
stone, and  cast  it  into  the  sea,  saying,  Thus  with  violence 
shall  that  great  city  Babylon  be  thrown  down,  and  shall 
be  found  no  more  at  all.”  Rev.  xviii.  1,  21.  In  view  of 
such  testimony  as  this  we  can  readily  believe  that  angels 
“ excel  in  strength,”  and  that  on  the  last  day  “ the  Lord 
Jesus  will  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty 
angels.”  2 Thess.  i.  7. 

4.  Angelic  spirits  are  sinless  and  obedient.  If  God,  as  we 
are  told,  made  man  upright,  we  may  be  sure  that  angels 
came  from  his  hand  pure,  spotless,  faultless.  We  are  not 
left,  however,  to  conjecture  on  this  point;  for  the  epithet 
holy  is  applied  to  angels.  They  are  called  u holy  angels.” 
Matt.  xxv.  31.  Their  holiness,  like  the  holiness  of  God,  is 
not  only  an  exemption  from  all  moral  impurity,  but  an  , 
assemblage  of  all  moral  excellences.  These  excellences, 
infinite  in  the  character  of  God,  are  of  necessity  finite  in 
the  character  of  angels,  because  they  are  creatures.  They 
are  objects  of  God’s  complacent  love.  They  are  just  what 
he  would  have  them  to  be.  They  shine  in  his  moral 
image  and  reflect  his  glory.  They  ascribe  to  him  all 
conceivable  moral  perfections,  and  these  perfections  they 
consider  embraced  in  holiness.  They  therefore  exclaim 
with  reverential  awe,  “ Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of 
hosts : the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory.”  Isa.  vi.  3, 


ANGELS. 


147 


They  have  an  appreciative  sense  of  the  holiness  of  the 
rlivine  character ; they  feel  for  it  an  intense  admiration, 
for  they  are  holy  beings,  and  out  of  their  holiness  arises 
love  to  holiness  as  exemplified  in  God.  In  connection 
with  the  purity  of  angels,  it  is  delightful  to  think  of  them 
as  constituting  “an  innum  rable  company.”  Heb.  xii.  22. 
There  are  countless  myriads  of  them,  and  they  retain 
their  original  rectitude.  They  are  resplendent  with  the 
beauty  o ? sinless  excellence.  In  short,  they  are  “ holy 
angels,”  and  their  obedience  is  inseparable  from  their 
holiness.  David  calls  on  them,  saying,  “Bless  the  Lord, 
ye  his  angels,  that  excel  in  strength,  that  do  his  com- 
mandments, hearkening  unto  the  voice  of  his  word.” 
Ps.  ciii.  20.  It  has  ever  been  characteristic  of  them  to 
hearken  to  the  voice  of  the  divine  word.  Thus  to 
hearken  is  to  obey.  There  is  law  in  heaven,  and  the 
will  of  God  is  the  supreme  law.  Every  angel  recog- 
nizes this  fact,  and  is  practically  conformed  to  the  will 
of  God.  There  is  much  meaning  in  the  words  of  Jesus 
when  he  teaches  us  to  pray,  “ Thy  will  be  done  in  earth, 
as  it  is  in  heaven.”  Matt..vi.  10.  It  is  taken  for  granted 
that  the  will  of  God  is  done  in  heaven.  If  so,  it  is  done 
by  angels.  They  are  inhabitant©-  of  heaven,  and  it  is  their 
pleasure  to  do  what  God  requires  them  to  do.  It  would 
be  a reflection  on  the  completeness  of  their  obedience  to 
intimate  that  they  ask  the  reason  of  any  command.  It 
is  enough  for  them  to  know  that  a command  comes  from 
God.  The  source  whence  it  comes  is  the  reason  why  it 
should  be  obeyed.  Angels  so  understand  the  matter,  and 
there  is,  therefore,  an  alacrity  in  their  obedience  highly 
pleasing  to  God.  Their  only  question  is,  What  does  the 
Lord  Jehovah  require?  Some  one  in  expressing  this 
thought  has  said,  “ If  God  should  send  two  angels  down 
from  heaven,  commanding  the  one  to  govern  an  empire, 


148 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


and  the  other  to  sweep  the  streets  of  a city,  they  would 
feel  no  disposition  to  exchange  employments.5’  Why? 
Because  the  will  of  every  angel  is  perfectly  absorbed  in 
the  will  of  God.  In  such  conformity  of  the  will  of  the 
creature  to  the  will  of  the  Creator,  true  happiness  is  to 
be  found.  Angels  are  therefore  happy.  Their  joy  is 
complete  and  their  bliss  unspeakable. 

The  Ministry  of  Angels. 

Having  attempted  to  show  who  and  what  angels  are,  it 
is  now  expedient  to  refer  to  what  they  do.  They  are 
doubtless  employed,  as  we  have  incidentally  seen ; but 
what  are  their  employments?  How  are  they  occupied? 
Much  might  be  said  of  their  agency  in  the  administra- 
tion of  God’s  providential  government,  but  I pass  over 
this  topic,  or  only  touch  it  in  its  relation  to  the  service 
the%y  perform  for  the  saints.  That  there  is  such  a service 
is  plain  from  these  words : “ Are  they  not  all  ministering 
spirits,  'sent  forth  to  minister  for  them  who  shall  be  heirs 
of  salvation?”  Heb.  i.  14.  To  minister  is  to  serve.  Jesus 
therefore  said,  “ Even  as  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a ran- 
som for  many.”  Matt.  xx.  28.  Christ  died  for  the  heirs 
of  salvation  ; and  angels  being  in  subjection  to  him,  he  has 
appointed  them  to  serve  the  saints,  and  the  service  is  most 
willingly  rendered.  It  is  unquestionable  that  angels  take 
a deep  interest  in  what  I may  call — 

1.  The  beginning  of  saintship.  The  greatest  of  moral 
changes  occurring  in  this  world  is  that  by  which  a sinner 
is  transformed  into  a saint,  an  unbeliever  into  a believer; 
a child  of  the  devil  into  a child  of  God.  This  change  is 
inseparably  connected  with  repentance,  and  repentance  is 
indispensable  to  salvation.  Jesus  said  in  his  teaching, 
u Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish and 


ANGELS . 


149 


Peter  under  divine  direction  uttered  these  words : “ Re- 
pent ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may 
be  blotted  out.”  Luke  xiii.  3;  Acts  iii.  19.  These  scrip- 
tures show  that  repentance  has  an  essential  relation  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  There 
is  so  much  involved  in  repentance,  such  important  con- 
sequences result  from  it,  that  angels  rejoice  over  the  event: 
u Tli ere  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God  over 
one  sinner  that  repenteth.”  Luke  xv.  10.  Such  a sinner 
becomes  an  heir  of  salvation,  and  angels  rejoice  in  anti- 
cipation of  his  ultimate  equality  with  themselves.  They 
at  once  assume  a service  which  is  to  them  unspeakably 
delightful,  and  they  serve  the  Lord  Jesus  in  serving  those 
bought  with  his  blood. 

2.  Angels  ivatch  and  guard  the  steps  of  the  saints.  It  is 
written,  “ For  he  shall  give  his  angels  charge  over  thee, 
to  keep  thee  in  all  thy  ways.  They  shall  bear  thee  up  in 
their  hands,  lest  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a stone.”  Ps. 
xci.  11,  12.  The  words  of  Jesus  may  also  be  properly 
quoted  here : “ Take  heed  that  ye  despise  not  one  of  these 
little  ones;  for  I say  unto  you,  That  in  heaven  their  an- 
gels do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven.”  Matt,  xviii.  10.  Without  entering  into  the  con- 
troverted question  whether  every  believer  has  a “ guardian 
angel,”  it  may  surely  be  said  that  the  meaning  of  this  pas- 
sage is  plain : The  little  ones,  according  to  verse  6,  are 
those  who  believe  in  Christ,  and  the  reason  assigned  why 
the}^  should  not  be  despised  is,  that  in  heaven  their  angel  s 
evermore  behold  the  face  of  God.  Jesus  therefore  teaches 
that  it  is  a serious  and  a perilous  thing  to  treat 'with  con- 
tempt the  weakest  of  his  followers.  To  show  the  esti- 
mate he  places  on  them  and  the  honor  they  enjoy,  he 
refers  to  “ their  angels.”  These  words,  “ their  angels,” 
mean  something.  The  little  )nes  who  believe  in  Christ 
13  * 


150 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


can  claim  these  angels  as  their  own — in  a sense,  it  may 
be,  which  we'  cannot  fully  understand,  but  still  their 
own,  “their  angels.”  I see  nothing  incredible  in  the 
idea  that  angels  are  divinely  appointed  to  watch  and 
guard  the  steps  of  the  saints. 

3.  Angels  convey  the  disembodied  spirits  of  the  saints  to 
heaven . If  they  invisibly  accompany  Christians  through 
the  pilgrimage  of  life,  it  is  morally  certain  that  they  are 
with  them  when  their  pilgrimage  ends.  But  what  does 
Jesus  say  ? Speaking  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  the 
beggar,  he  used  these  significant  words  : “ And  it  came  to 
pass  that  the  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the  angels 
into  Abraham’s  bosom.”  Luke  xvi.  22.  No  one  supposes 
that  the  emaciated  body  of  Lazarus  was  conveyed  to 
Abraham’s  bosom.  It  was  the  immortal  spirit  of  which  the 
angels  took  charge  and  which  they  carried  to  the  heavenly 
mansions.  Nor  is  the  case  referred  to  as  peculiar  and  ex- 
ceptional, but  we  are  rather  led  to  regard  it  as  a common 
occurrence;  that  is  to  say,  the  obvious  inference  is,  that 
angels  do  for  every  dying  saint  what  they  did  for  Laz- 
arus— convey  his  disembodied  spirit  to  the  paradise  ol 
God.  How  little  we  probably  know  of  what  takes  place 
in  the  dying  chamber  ! We  see  the  cold  sweat  on  the 
pale  brow,  we  hear  the  death-rattle,  we  feel  the  tears  as 
they  roll  down  our  cheeks,  and  we  are  obliged  to  listen  to 
the  lamentations  of  bereaved  ones.  If,  however,  our  eyes 
could  be  opened  as  were  those  of  the  young  man  for  whom 
Elisha  prayed  (2  Kings  vi.  17),  \ye  might  possibly  see  an 
angelic  escort  waiting  to  conduct  the  emancipated  spirit 
to  its  home  in  the  skies. 

4.  Angels  will  mimster  to  uthe  heirs  of  salvation  ” when 
Christ  comes  again.  It  is  the  fundamental  fact  of  the  gos  • 
pel,  that  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners  ; and  a 
kindred  truth  is  that  he  will  come  “ the  second  time  with 


ANGELS. 


151 


out  sin  unto  salvation.”  Heb.  ix.  28.  He  will  come  to  com 
summate  the  salvation  of  his  followers.  His  coming  will 
be  grand  and  glorious,  and  he  has  told  us  that  all  the 
holy  angels  shall  be  with  him.  They  will  constitute  his 
shining  retinue.  “ And  he  shall  send  his  angels  with  a 
great  sound  of  a trumpet,  and  they  shall  gather  together 
his  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to 
the  other.”  Matt.  xxiv.  31.  The  Saviour  in  his  explana- 
tion of  the  parable  of  the  “tares  and  wheat”  said.  “The 
reapers  are  the  angels,”  and  added,  “ The  Son  of  man 
shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of 
his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  that  do  in- 
iquity.” Matt.  xiii.  41. 

We  may  form  some  feeble  conception  of  the  interest 
angels  will  feel  in  gathering  the  saints  together,  for  these 
saints  will  be  the  same  persons  over  whose  repentance,  as 
sinners,  they  rejoiced.  Having  ministered  to  them  through 
their  earthly  life,  having  been  present  with  them  in  death, 
having  conveyed  their  separate  spirits  to  the  realms  of 
bliss,  they  continue  their  kind  offices  at  the  resurrection. 
How  will  they  exult  when  they  see  the  bodies  of  the 
saints,  at  the  bidding  of  their  Lord,  come  up  out  of  the 
grave  radiant  with  glory  and  clothed  with  immortality! 
When  the  redeemed  hosts  are  invited  to  “inherit  the 
kingdom  ” of  God,  they  will  doubtless  take  possession  of 
their  inheritance  amid  angelic  congratulations.  Through 
everlasting  ages  saints  and  angels  will  live  in  blessed 
companionship. 

Sinful  Angels. 

Having  referred  to  the  character  and  ministry  of  holy 
angels,  it  is  proper  in  the  close  of  this  chapter  to  direct 
attention  to  sinful  angels.  I designate  them  thus,  because 
Peter  describes  them  as  “ the  angels  that  sinned,”  and 


152 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


Jude  denominates  them  “ the  angels  that  kept  not  theii 
tin  t estate,  but  left  their  own  habitation.”  2 Pet.  ii.  4; 
Jude  6.  It  is  plain  that  they  had  a “ first  estate,”  and  a 
u habitation”  peculiarly  their  own.  Why  they  kept  not 
“ their  first  estate,  but  left  their  own  habitation,”  we  can- 
rv.it  tell,  for  the  reason  has  not  be^a  given.  True,  one  pas- 
sage (1  Tim.  iii.  6)  contains  an  intimation  that  the  sin  of  the 
devil  was  “ pride,”  but  as  to  the  cause  of  his  pride  we  know 
nothing ; nor  are  we  under  obligation  to  adopt  the  theory 
of  Milton  or  of  any  other  great  man.  The  fact  that  some 
of  the  angels  sinned  is  the  thing  which  concerns  us,  and 
we  are  concerned  in  it,  because  their  sin  had  a disastrous 
connection  with  the  destiny  of  man.  There  is  much  less 
of  mystery  in  the  sin  of  Eve  in  the  garden  of  Eden  than 
in  the  origin  of  sin  among  the  angels.  Eve  was  influenced 
by  an  artful  and  plausible  temptation  presented  by  an- 
other being,  but  this  could  not  be  the  case  with  the  first 
angel  that  sinned.  There  was  no  external  influence  or 
temptation  leading  to  sin.  Sin  must  have  been  the  result 
of  internal  thought  and  purpose ; but  howr  the  thought 
arose  and  how  the  purpose  wras  formed  in  a holy  being 
we  shall  not  know  till  the  judgment  of  the  great  day  dis- 
closes all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  angelic 
revolt. 

It  is  evident  that  no  federal  headship  was  recognized 
among  angels.,  but  that  they  acted  in  their  individual 
capacity.  On  this  account  some,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
free  agency,  sinned,  and  others  maintained  their  allegiance 
to  God.  A1I  the  probabilities  are  that  sin  originated  wdth 
Satan,  and  that  he  had  some  kind  of  superiority,  which  en- 
abled him  to  propagate  his  influence  successfully  among 
his  fellow-spirits.  Unless  we  regard  him  in  this  light — 
namely,  as  the  head  and  prime  mover  of  the  angelic  in- 
surrection— it  will  be  difficult  to  say  why  Jesus  speaks  of 


ANGELS. 


153 


u the  devil  and  his  angels.”  Sinful  angels  are  not  his  by 
any  creative  tie,  for  he  has  no  creative  power ; but  they 
must  be  his,  because  he  is  their  leader  and  they  act  in 
subordination  to  him.  He  is,  therefore,  everywhere  refer- 
red to  in  the  Scriptures  as  pre-eminent  among  apostate 
spirits,  and  is  called  “ the  prince  of  this  world  ” and  “ the 
god  of  this  world.”  In  the  common  version  of  the  Bible 
we  have  the  term  devil  very  frequently,  both  in  the  singular 
and  in  the  plural  number.  It  is  not  so  in  the  original 
Greek.  The  term  translated  a devil,”  in  its  application  to 
Satan,  is  always  used  in  the  singular  number.  There  are 
two  other  terms  sometimes  translated  “ devil  ” in  the  sin- 
gular, but  more  frequently  “ devils  ” in  the  plural,  but  the 
best  scholars  tell  ns,  that  in  every  instance  the  transla- 
tion should  be  demon  and  demons.  The  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture, therefore,  is,  that  there  are  among  fallen  angels 
many  demons,  but  only  one  devil,  who  presides  over 
the  demons. 

This  view  seems  to  be  sustained  by  Eph.  vi.  11,  12. 
There  we  have  reference  to  “ the  wiles  of  the  devil,”  and 
we  are  told  that  our  contest  is  not  against  human  foes 
alone,  but  “ against  principalities,  against  powers,  against 
the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  against  spiritual 
wickedness  in  high  places.”  Doddridge’s  paraphrase  of 
the  twelfth  verse  is  so  forcible  that  I will  not  resist  my 
inclination  to  quote  it.  The  reader  will  remember  that 
the  words  in  italic  letters  are  Doddridge’s  translation, 
while  the  other  words  are  explanatorjr : /J  For  in  the  war- 
fare we  are  carrying  on,  our  struggle  and  contention  is  not 
with  flesh  and  blood  alone;  not  merely  with  human  adver- 
saries, however  powerful,  subtle,  and  cruel ; not  only  with 
the  remaining  corruptions  of  animal  nature,  which  often 
give  us  such  painful  exercise ; but  we  are  called  to  wres- 
tle and  contend  with  sagacious  and  mighty  spirits,  once 


154 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


ranked  among  celestial  principalities , though  now  degrad* 
ed  by  their  apostasy  to  be  chiefs  in  hell,  and  with  powers 
that  employ  their  utmost  strength  to  ruin  us,  and  that 
still  keep  their  regular  subordination,  that  their  efforts 
of  mischief  may  be  more  effectual ; we  contend  with  those 
who  are  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  age  and  world,  who 
have  long  usurped  a dominion  over  it,  and  who  in  the 
present  age  hold  men  in  the  chains  of  hereditary  super- 
stition and  destructive  errors,  which  have  been  delivered 
down  to  them  through  many  succeeding  generations,  and 
with  spirits  who  became  authors  and  abettors  of  wickedness 
even  while  they  abode  in  heavenly  [ places ],  where  they  re- 
belled against  the  God  of  heaven,  and  drew  in  multitudes, 
who  were  before  holy  and  happy  spirits,  to  take  part  with 
them  in  their  ungrateful  and  impious  revolt.  With  these 
are  we  struggling  for  that  great  celestial  prize  which  they 
had  for  ever  lost ; and  their  nature,  experience,  and  situa- 
tion give  them  most  formidable  advantages  against  the 
weak  children  of  men,  surrounded  with  so  many  exam- 
ples of  evil  and  with  such  powerful  temptations  to  it.” 1 
That  the  influence  of  the  devil,  which  includes  the  in- 
fluence of  all  the  fallen  angels,  is  very  great,  appears  from 
the  effects  ascribed  to  his  agency.  He  is  said  to  “ take 
away  the  word  of  God  out  of  their  hearts,  lest  they 
should  believe  and  be  saved  ” (Luke  viii.  12)  ; to  “blind 
the  minds  of  them  which  believe  not”  (2  Cor.  iv.  4);  and 
sinners  are  said  to  be  “taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will.” 
2 Tim.  ii.  26.  Christians,  too,  are  the  objects  of  his  im- 
placable hatred.  He  has  “devices”  against  them,  and 
seeks  their  ruin.  He  is  fertile  in  expedients  to  lead 
them  astray,  and  even  transforms  himself  “into  an  angel 
of  light”  to  accomplish  his  evil  purposes.  He  is  the 
chief  adversary  of  God,  and  with  unwearied  constancy  at- 
Family  Expositor , p.  698. 


ANGELS. 


155 


tempts  to  defeat  the  divine  purposes.  His  malignant  de- 
pravity has  shown  itself  in  all  ages,  and  the  lapse  of 
many  centuries  has  not  diminished  its  power.  There  is 
one  fact  which,  perhaps  above  every  other,  indicates  the 
greatness  and  the  extent  of  Satan’s  influence.  It  is  this 
The  most  effectual  restraints  are  to  be  placed  on  this  in- 
fluence before  the  day  of  millennial  glory  can  come. 
When  iri  the  strong,  figurative  language  of  Scripture  the 
devil  is  “ bound  . . . and  cast  into  the  bottomless  pit,” 
then,  and  not  till  then,  will  “ earth  keep  jubilee  a thou- 
sand years.” 

While,  howrever,  we  ascribe  to  Satan  and  his  accom- 
plices great  influence  for  evil,  we  must  not  suppose  that 
they  possess  compulsory  power.  They  do  not,  and  the 
fact  of  temptation  proves  it.  Why  should  the  devil 
tempt  and  allure  men  to  sin,  why  present  inducements 
to  sin,  if  he  could  coerce  them  to  commit  sin?  The  pro- 
cess of  coercion,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  would  be  much  more 
simple  than  the  process  of  temptation.  As  Satan  pos- 
sesses no  power  of  compulsion,  men  are  culpable  and 
guilty  when  they  yield  to  his  temptations.  Whenever 
assailed  by  temptation  they  should,  in  imitation  of  the 
example  of  Jesus,  say,  “Get  thee  hence,  Satan.” 

Speculation  with  regard  to  the  future  of  fallen  angels 
would  be  unjustifiable,  but  something  can  be  said  that 
does  not  belong  to  the  realm  of  speculation.  They  are 
evidently  in  custody  now,  reserved  to  the  judgment  of 
the  great  day.  I quote  again  from  Peter  and  Jude : “ For 
if  God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast  them 
down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  darkness, 
to  be  reserved  unto  judgment,”  etc.;  “And  the  angels  that 
kept  not  their  first  estate,  but  left  their  own  habitation, 
he  hath  reserved  in  everlasting  chains  under  darkness 
unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.”  2 Pet.  ii.  4;  Jude  6 


15G 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


Other  scriptures  prove  abundantly  that  men  will  be 
judged  on  the  great  day,  but  these  passages  teach  the 
same  thing  concerning  the  angels- that  sinned.  They  are 
“ reserved  unto  judgment.”  All  the  facts  having  a bear- 
ing on  their  sin  will  be  brought  to  light,  their  inexcu- 
sable guilt  will  be  shown,  and  the  divine  procedure  in 
their  case  will  be  fully  vindicated.  Truly,  “ the  day  of 
the  Lord  ” will  be  a great  day — great  in  publicly  fixing 
the  destinies  of  angels  and  men. 

Wretched  as  are  fallen  spirits  now,  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  there  will  be  decided  increase  of  their  wretch- 
edness after  sentence  is  pronounced  on  them  at  the  judg- 
ment. In  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  view,  I refer  to 
Matt.  viii.  28,  29 : u And  when  he  was  come  to  the  othet 
side,  into  the  country  of  the  Gergesenes,  there  met  him 
two  possessed  with  demons,  coming  out  of  the  tombs,  ex- 
ceeding fierce,  so  that  no  man  might  pass'  by  that  way. 
And  behold,  they  cried  out,  saying,  What  have  we  to  do 
with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  God?  Art  thou  come  hith- 
er to  torment  us  before  the  time?” 

The  demons,  having  effectual  control  of  the  unfortunate 
men,  spoke  through  them.  There  was  no  denial,  but  rath- 
er a recognition,  of  their  future  doom.  They  seem,  how- 
ever, to  have  regarded  that  doom  as  distant,  and  tliejr 
were  anxious  to  know  whether  Jesus  was  so  anticipating 
it  as  to  torment  them  before  the  time.  We  may  regard 
these  demons  as  representing  the  whole  confederacy  of 
fallen  angels;  and  if  so,  it  follows  that  there  is  a univer- 
sal belief  of  a fixed  period  when  their  torment  will  be 
greatly  augmented.  The  basis  of  that  belief,  we  may 
reasonably  suppose,  is  to  be  found  in  some  intimation 
given  them  wdien  they  learned  that  they  were  to  be  “ re* 
served  to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.” 


CHAPTER  XI. 

MAN. 


Angels  and  men,  so  far  as  we  know,  constitute  the  two 
orders  of  intelligent  beings  that  God  has  made.  It  would 
be  rash  and  foolish  to  assert  that  he  has  created  no  more 
than  these  two  orders.  There  may  be  rational  creatures 
in  many  worlds  immeasurably  distant  from  this — worlds 
the  existence  of  which  the  telescope  has  not  yet  revealed 
to  the  astronomer.  But,  on  a point  like  this,  wisdom  is 
silence.  Having  in  the  preceding  chapter  called  attention 
to.  angels  good  and  evil — to  their  ministry  of  righteousness 
and  to  their  work  of  destruction — the  claims  of  the  human 
race  to  consideration  are  next  in  order. 

The  First  State  of  Man. 

We  have  already  seen  that  when  the  wTork  of  oreation 
was  finished  it  wTas  “ very  good.”  In  this  work  was  in- 
cluded the  formation  of  man,  as  to  his  body,  out  of  “ the 
dust  of  the  ground,”  while  God  u breathed  into  his  nostrils 
the  breath  of  life  ; and  man  became  a living  soul.”  Gen. 
ii.  7.  This  language  suggests  the  superiority  of  man  to 
the  various  orders  of  animals,  but  his  superiority  is  more 
clearly  indicated  in  these  words : “ And  God  said,  Let  us 
make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness : and  let  them 
have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl 
of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth,  and 

14  157 

a&w  . ( 


158 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth.” 
Gen  i.  26.  Language  could  not  more  forcibly  express  the 
idea  of  universal  dominion.  Man  was  to  be  pre-eminent 
on  earth,  the  lord  of  the  lower  creation.  This  is  so 
plain  that  some  have  supposed  it  to  be  all  that  is  meant 
by  man’s  being  made  in  the  image  of  God.  While  dis- 
senting from  this  view,  I freely  admit,  and  indeed  insist, 
that  man  was,  under  God,  to  have  supreme  authority  and 
control  over  the  land  and  over  the  sea.  This  of  course 
embraced  dominion  over  the  inhabitants  of  the  land 
and  those  of  the  sea. 

But  it  is  time  to  inquire  more  particularly  what  is  meant 
by  the  words,  “ And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,  after  our  likeness.”  There  can  be  no  reference 
to  a bodily  image,  for  God  has  no  body,  but.  is  a pure 
spirit.  A physical  resemblance  is  out  of  the  question, 
because  impossible.  There  have  been  useless  attempts 
made  to  point  out  a difference  in  the  meaning  of  “ image” 
and  “likeness”  in  the  passage  under  consideration.  I 
only  refer  to  the  matter  to  express  the  opinion  that  there 
is  no  difference.  The  image  of  God  is  his  likeness,  and 
his  likeness  is  his  image.  In  what  sense  was  man  made 
in  the  image  of  God? 

1.  He  was  made  a rational  being . In  this  he  differed  from 
all  inferior  arimals.  Of  many  of  them  it  may  be  said 
that  they  excel  man  in  sagacious  instinct.  / What  is  in- 
stinct? Dr.  Paley  has  said,  “An  instinct  is  a propensity 
prior  to  experience  and  independent  of  instruction^/  It 
is  a blind,  unreasoning  impulse,  that  prompts  animals  to 
do  certain  things  without  knowing  why  or  caring  to  im- 
prove the  manner  of  doing  them^)Hence  the  instincts  of 
animals  act  with  unchangeable  uniformity,  and  there  is 
no  improvement.  Migratory  birds  perform  their  migra- 
tions just  as  birds  did  a thousand  years  ago;  the  beaver 


MAN. 


159 


constructs  it?  habitation  as  it  was  made  in  other  centu- 
ries ; and  the  bee  builds  its  cell  as  in  the  days  of  antiq- 
uity. Of  all  inferior  animals  it  has  to  be  said  that  they 
are  irrational.  The  difference  between  them  and  man  is 
as  wide  as  the  poles,  for  man  is  rational.  He  is  endowed 
with  mental  faculties  which  are  capable  of  indefinite  im- 
provement. He  can,  therefore,  rise  higher  and  higher  in 
the  scale  of  intellectual  excellence.  Man  was  originally 
made  a rational  creature ; and,  though  we  may  suppose 
that  his  rationality  did  not  escape  the  effects  of  the  Fall, 
he  is  still  rational.  To  this  fact  the  apostle  James  no 
doubt  refers  when  he  speaks  of  men  as  u made  after  the 
similitude  of  God.”  Jas.  iff.  9.  They  are  now  made  after 
the  image  of  God  as  rational,  intellectual  beings.  This  is 
evident,  because  they  are  proper  subjects  of  moral  govern- 
ment, and  without  a ratioifal  nature  they  could  not  be 
accountable.  Human  governments  recognize  this  view  of 
the  matter,  for  they  do  not  hold  idiots  and  lunatics  re- 
sponsible. The  reason  is  that  in  idiots  the  rational  pow- 
ers have  never  been  sufficiently  unfolded  to  furnish  a 
basis  for  moral  accountability  ; and  in  the  case  of  lunatics 
the  intellect,  though  once  developed,  has  been  so  impair- 
ed as  to  nullify  moral  obligation. 

It  is  quite  manifest  that  of  all  the  numerous  orders  of 
earthly  creatures  man  alone  was  made  in  his  rational  na- 
ture after  the  image  of  God.  This  was  his  glory— not  his 
chief  glory,  as  we  shall  see,  but  his  gloiy.  To  be  made 
like  God,  what  a distinction!  To  possess  a rational, 
spiritual  principle,  which  is  in  a peculiar  sense  an  emana- 
tion from  the  “ Father  of  Spirits,”  what  an  honor ! For 
it  is  very  worthy  of  remark  that  while  God  is  referred  to 
as  the  Maker  and  Former  of  bodies,  he  is  never  called  the 
Father  of  bodies,  but  “ the  Father  of  spirits.”  The  idea 
seems  to  be  that  there  is  something  in  spirit  which  allies 


160 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


it  specially  to  God — allies  it  in  a sense  in  which  no  object 
composed  of  matter  can  be  allied  to  him.  Man,  as  pos- 
sessed of  rationality,  intellect,  spirit,  was  made  after  the 
image  of  God. 

2.  He  was  made  after  the  moral  image  of  God.  This  means 
that  he  was  created  a holy  being,  and  this  was  the  chief 
glory  with  which  he  was  crowned.  It  was  great  glory  to 
be  made  like  God  in  his  intellectual  excellences,  but  it 
was  the  greatest  glory  to  be  made  like  him  in  his  moral 
perfections.  We  are  told  that  “ God  hath  made  man  up- 
right.” Eccles.  vii.  29.  < Our  first  parents  came  from  the 
hand  of  God  as  spotless  as  the  angels  in  heaven.  There 
was  no  stain  upon  them,  no  taint  of  imperfection  in  their 
characten^They  were  in  their  finite  nature  holy  as  God 
is  holy.  The  beauty  of  holiness  was  symbolized  by  the 
beauty  of  Eden,  and  all  the  surroundings  of  the  first  pair 
were  in  delightful  harmony  with  the  sinlessness  of  their 
nature  and  the  purity  of  their  emotions. 

The  character  of  God  is  the  standard  of  moral  right 
and  moral  perfection.  Therefore,  whatever  comes  up  to 
this  standard  is  morally  right  and  perfect.  Man  in  his 
original  state  was  fully  conformed  to  this  standard.  The 
disposition  of  his  heart  was  right,  his  affections  were 
placed  supremely  on  God,  his  will  was  in  blessed  unison 
with  the  divine  will,  his  understanding  was  full  of  light, 
and  nothing  came  within  the  cognizance  of  conscience 
without  securing  its  approval.  The  stamp  of  holiness 
was  on  the  first  man,  the  ancestor  of  the  race.  There  is 
an  indirect  proof  of  the  original  rectitude  of  man  which 
should  not  be  overlooked.  It  is  found  in  two  passages  in 
Paul’s  Epistles : “ Put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is 
created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness  ” (Eph.  iv.  24)  ; 
“ And  have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in 
knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him.” 


MAN, 


161 


Col.  iii.  10.  The  doctrine  taught  in  these  passages  seems 
to  be  that  regeneration  is  the  restoration  of  man  to  the 
image  of  God.  which  image  consists  in  “ righteousness 
and  true  holiness.”  This  being  the  case,  it  follows  that 
the  righteousness  and  holiness  restored  in  regeneration 
were  lost  by  the  Fall;  and,  if  lost  then,  must  have  existed 
before  that  great  disaster.  Man’s  original  state  was  a state 
of  innocence,  integrity,  uprightness,  and  purity.  The  ap- 
proving smile  of  God  was  upon  him. 

Were  we  disposed  to  do  so,  it  would  be  difficult  to  re- 
strain our  thoughts  from  going  out  in  contemplation'  of 
the  happy  condition  of  the  primeval  pair.  ^Thev  walked 
in  the  unclouded  light  of  the  divine  countenance/  Their 
souls  were  filled  with  love  and  peace  and  joy.  Every  de- 
sire was  gratified,  every  want  was  supplied.  They  lifted 
up  their  hearts  with  their  \^>ices  to  God  in  thanksgiving 
and  praise  for  the  blessings  bestowed  upon  them  in  rich- 
est profusion.  There  was  no  need  of  prayer,  and  there- 
fore ampler  opportunity  for  praise.  God  was  pleased  to 
have  worship  on  earth  as  well  as  in  heaven. 

How  beautiful  must  have  been  the  garden  which  “ the 
Lord  God  planted  eastward  in  Eden  ” ! In  it  was  to  be 
found  “ every  tree  pleasant  to  the  sight,”  whose  “ fruit  was 
good  for  food.”  We  may  imagine  that  on  every  hand  were 
flowers  of  thornless  beauty  and  sweetest  perfume,  birds  of 
bulliant  plumage  and  richest  voice,  while  the  river  which 
“ went  out  of  Eden  to  water  the  garden  ” sent  forth  its 
limpid  stream  bright  by  day  and  musical  by  night.  The 
sun  shone  in  cloudless  spler\dor  in  the  heavens,  but  be- 
neficent only  were  his  rays ; while  the  moon  threw  a mild- 
er charm  on  all  sur:ounding  objects,  leaving  the  happy 
pair  m blessed  perplexity  whether  to  give  preference  to 
the  sun  and  the  day  or  to  the  moon  and  the  night.  How 
lovely  was  Paradise  ere  sin  shed  its  curse  and  its  blight 

14  * 


162 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


on  the  earth ! What  a suitable  abode  for  man  in  hi t 
original  state  \ Alas ! his  original  state  was  not  perma- 
nent. 

The  Fall  of  Man. 

u And  the  Lord  God  took  the  man,  and  put  him  into 
the  garden  of  Eden  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it.  And  the 
Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  Of  every  tree  of 
the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat : but  of  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it:  foi 
in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely 
die.”  Gen.  ii.  15-17. 

These  words  seem  to  have  been  addressed  to  Adam  be- 
fore Eve  was  made,  but  it  is  evident  from  the  subsequent 
part  of  the  narrative  that  she  considered  them  as  equally 
applicable  to  herself.  (How  long  our  first  parents  remain- 
ed in  a sinless  state — in  otffer  words,  how  long  they  re- 
tained the  moral  image  of  God,  in  which  they  were  made 
— it  is  impossible  to  sa}^}  The  matter  comes  not  within 
the  horizon  of  human  knowledge.  Some  have  supposed 
that  man’s  state  of  innocence  continued  about  a century, 
and  others  have  thought  that  it  was  of  only  a few  days’ 
duration.  Conjecture  is  useless  and  vain.  It  is  enough 
for  us  to  know  that  it  continued  until  the  fact  was  proved 
that  man  was  capable  of  obedience.  This  fact  being 
proved,  it  follows  that  his  obedience  might  have  been 
permanent.  That  is  to  say,  as  there  was  nothing  to  make 
bis  obedience  impracticable  while  he  rendered  it,  so  there 
was  no  reason  why  that  obedience  might  not  have  been 
perpetual.  What  was  done  for  a day  or  a year  might 
have  been  done  for  an  indefinite  number  of  days  or 
years,  and  would  have  been  done,  but  for  man’s  volun- 
tary decision  to  disobey.  Alas  for  that  decision ! 

Before  proceeding  farther  it  will  be  well  tu  give  the 
scriptural  account  of  the  Fall: 


MAN. 


163 


“ Now  the  serpent  was  more  subtile  than  any  beast  of 
the  field  which  the  Lord  God  had  made.  And  he  said 
unto  the  woman,  Yea,  hath  God  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat 
of  every  tree  of  the  garden  ? And  the  woman  said  unto 
the  serpent,  We  may  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  trees  of  the 
garden  : but  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  which  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  garden,  God  hath  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat 
of  it,  neither  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die.  And  the 
serpent  said  unto  the  woman,  Ye  shall  not  surely  die: 
for  God  doth  know  that  in  the  day  ye  eat  thereof,  then 
your  eyes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be  as  gods,  know- 
ing good  and  evil.  And  when  the  woman  saw  that 
the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant 
to  the  eyes,  and  a tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one  wise, 
she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and  did  eat,  and  gave 
also  to  her  husband  with*her;  and  he  did  eat.”  Gen. 
iii.  1-6. 

With  regard  to  the  serpent,  it  may  be  said  that  though 
the  animal  is  not  to  be  identified  with  Satan,  yet  Satan 
so  evidently  acted  through  it,  that  in  Scripture  serpent 
has  become  one  of  his  names.  This  will  appear  from 
the  following  passages : “ And  the  great  dragon  was  cast 
out,  that  old  serpent,  called  the  Devil  and  Satan,  which 
deceiveth  the  whole  world  “ And  he  laid  hold  on  the 
dragon,  that  old  serpent,  which  is  the  Devil  and  Satan 
and  bound  him  a thousand  years.”  Rev.  xii.  9;  xx.  2. 
It  is  manifest  that  Satan  is  called  serpent  because  lie 
availed  himself  of  a serpent  in  tempting  Eve,  and  is 
called  “ that  old  serpent  ” because  he  began  his  work  of 
deception  and  ruin  in  the  world’s  infancy.  It  is  difficult 
to  divest  ourselves  of  associations  that  have  clung  to  us 
from  our  earliest  years;  and  as  there  is  in  the  serpent 
something  very  repulsive,  we  are  apt  to  think  it  strange 
that  our  mother  Eve  was  successfully  approached  by 


164 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


such  an  animal.  We  must  remember  that  the  serpent 
is  not  now  what  it  was  before  the  fall  of  man.  The 
curse  pronounced  on  it  was  heavy,  and  was  expressed  in 
part  in  these  words : “ Upon  thy  belly  shalt  thou  go, 
and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days  of  thy  life.”  Gen. 
iii.  14.  It  may  be  inferred  from  this  language  that  the 
serpent  before  receiving  its  doom  was  erect,  and  most 
probably  there  was  no  animal  so  beautiful  and  graceful. 
Oertaimy,  Satan,  to  accomplish  his  purpose,  selected  the 
most  suitable  instrument. 

Some  have  thought  it  unworthy  of  God  to  make 
results  so  grave  and  so  fearful  contingent  on  eating  the 
fruit  of  a certain  tree.  How  could  it  be  unworthy  of 
him?  He  designed  to  test  the  obedience  of  the  two 
rational  beings  he  had  placed  in  the  garden.  Obedience 
can  be  tested  as  well  by  a little  thing  as  by  a great  thing, 
and  possibly  better.  In  doing  a great  thing,  a man  may 
be  influenced  more  by  the  magnitude  of  the  thing  than 
by  the  authority  enjoining  its  performance;  whereas,  in 
doing  a little  thing,  so  called,  he  is  much  more  likely  to 
act  out  of  reverence  for  the  authority  of  God.  This  is 
the  very  essence  of  true  obedience.  There  is  no  genuine 
obedience  without  it.  If  any  one  of  a thousand  con- 
siderations possible  should  prompt  one  to  the  performance 
of  an  act  that  God  requires,  it  would  not  be  an  act 
of  obedience  unless  it  were  performed  because  required 
by  him. 

In  the  case  of  Adam  and  Eve  the  temptation  to  dis- 
obedience was  by  no  means  strong.  They  were  permitted 
to  eat  the  fruit  of  all  the  trees  in  the  garden  except  one. 
Only  one  prohibition  was  laid  upon  them.  They  were 
told  that,  if  they  violated  this  prohibition,  a terrible  evil, 
death,  would  come  upon  them.  So  far  as  we  can  judge, 
there  was  no  reason  in  favor  of  eating  the  .orbidden 


MAN. 


165 


fruit,  and  a reason  of  tremendous  strength  in  favor  of 
abstaining  from  it.  The  serpent,  however,  beguiled  Eve 
and  she  ate  the  fatal  fruit,  giving  it  to  her  husband,  who 
also  ate.  Paul  tells  us  that  “Adam  was  not  deceived, 
but  the  woman  being  deceived  was  in  the  transgression.” 
1 Tim.  ii.  14.  This  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  tho 
account  we  have  in  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis.  Eve 
was  beguiled  and  sinned  under  deception,  but  Adam 
sinned,  as  we  say,  with  his  eyes  open.  He  knew  what 
he  was  doing,  and  with  purpose  linked  his  destiny  with 
that  of  his  wife,  while  he  cast  the  blame  of  his  act  on 
God,  saying,  “ The  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be 
with  me,  she  gave  me  of  the  tree,  and  I did  eat.”  Gen. 
iii.  12.1 

Eve,  though  acting  under  a mistake  and  a delusion, 
was  by  no  means  excusable,  but  Adam  was  far  more 
inexcusable  than  she,  for  he  acted  intelligently  as  well 
as  voluntarily.  There  was,  in  his  case,  not  a single 
circumstance  of  palliation.  He  knew  what  he  was  doing. 
It  is  to  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  had  a 
far  more  important  connection  with  the  human  race 
than  the  sin  of  Eve.  The  man,  and  not  the  woman, 
was  to  be  the  head  and  representative  of  the  race.  We 
are  therefore  told  that  “by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,”  and  that  “in  Adam  all  die.”  Rom.  v.  12;  1 Cor, 
xv.  22.  Men  in  contemplating  the  disastrous  results  of 
Adam’s  sin  have  asked  many  questions:  Ihey  have  wished 
to  know  whether  his  sin  could  not  have  been  prevented— 

1 It  is  strange  that  so  many  persons  believe  that  Adam  blamed  E?e 
for  his  act.  lie  blamed  God.  “The  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be 
with  me.”  As  if  he  had  said,  Thou  gavest  me  this  woman  to  be  with 
me  as  my  wife;  and  how  could  the  purposes  of  our  conjugal  compan- 
ionship be  carried  out  unless,  by  copying  her  example,  I made  hex 
character  and  destiny  mine? 


[66 


CHRISTIAN  JD0CTRI1 \ ES. 


whether  he  could  not  have  been  made  incapable  of  sin- 
ning, etc.  No  doubt,  if  God  had  chosen  so  \o  exert  his 
power,  he  could  have  prevented  sin : but  he  did  not- 
choose  thus  to  prevent  its  introduction  into  the  woild, 
He  could  have  made  man  incapable  of  sinning,  In 
how  many  ways  he  could  have  done  this,  we  know  not; 
but  we  are  sure  he  could  have  done  it  by  making  man 
a piece  of  mere  machinery,  irresponsible,  because  not 
a free  agent.  That  there  are  mysteries  connected  with 
the  existence  of  sin,  no  one  will  deny ; but  it  is  certainly 
unreasonable  to  complain  that  Adam  was  mode  a free 
agent.  What  is  free  agency?  As  an  agent  is  an  actor, 
so  the  central  essence  of  free  agency  is  the  power  of 
acting  as  the  agent  pleases.  This  power  was  given  to  / 
Adam.  He  had  the  capacity  to  love  and  serve  God,  in 
proof  of  which  he  did  for  a time  love  and  serve  him. 

In  doing  so  he  exercised  powers  that  God  had  given 
him,  and  acted  in  accordance  with  his  inclination.  ' In 
sinning  also  he  acted  in  accordance  with  his  inclination, 
and  illustrated  the  doctrine  of  free  agency,  for  there 
was  a perfect  absence  of  all  compulsory  influence. 
Adam  sinned  because  he  chose  to  sin;  he  chose  to  sin 
in  the  exercise  of  his  free  agency ; and  he  was  capable 
of  sinning,  because  he  was  a man  and  not  an  irrational 
creature.  • 

Sometimes  it  is  curiously  inquired  whether  Adam  and 
Eve  did  not  sin  in  their  hearts  before  they  sinned  in 
eating  the  forbidden  fruit.  No  doubt  they  did.  The 
sin  of  Eve  had  its  beginning  in  unbelief.  In  giving 
credence  to  what  the  tempter  said  she  called  in  question 
the  truth  of  what  God  had  said,  and  the  unbelief  of 
her  heart  led  to  the  outward  act  of  eating  the  fruit.  As 
Adam  was  “not  deceived,”  his  consent  to  disobey  God — 
and  consent  is  of  the  heart — must  have  preceded  the 


MAN 


167 


external  act  of  disobedience.  It  seems  plain,  therefore, 
that  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  had  its  origin  in  their 
hearts. 

The  threatened  penalty  claims  attention.  It  is  in  these 
words : “ In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shall 
surely  die.”  Most  persons,  perhaps,  in  reading  this  lan- 
guage, receive  the  impression  that  natural  death  is  refer- 
red to.  No  doubt  it  is,  but  the  death  of  the  body  by  no 
means  exhausts  the  reference.  The  bodies  of  Adam  and 
Eve  did  not  die  actually  on  the  day  of  trangression,  but 
they  died  virtually . They  were  at  once  placed  under  the 
law  of  mortality — sin  put  them  there — and  the  seeds  of 
death  were  planted  in  them.  There  was,  in  consequence 
of  sin,  subjection  to  disease,  infirmity,  and  dissolution ; 
and  the  physical  death  of  the  guilty  pair  became  just  as 
certain  when  they  sinned  as  if  it  had  occurred  while  yet 
they  were  eating  the  fatal  fruit.  Not  only  did  the  natu- 
ral death  of  Adam  result  from  his  sin,  but  the  natural 
death  of  all  his  posterity  results  from  the  same  cause. 
This  fact,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  utterly  destructive  of  the 
theory  that  the  body  of  Adam  would  have  died  even  if 
he  had  not  sinned.  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  death 
where  sin  is  not. 

I have  intimated  that  something  more  than  the  death 
of  the  body  is  meant  by  the  threatening,  “ Thou  shalt 
surely  die.”  Spiritual  death  is  evidently  referred  to ; and 
it  is  far  more  fearful  than  bodily  death.  The  latter  takes 
place  when  the  spirit  leaves  the  body ; the  former  takes 
place  when  God  leaves  the  spirit.  By  how  much  the  soul 
is  worth  more  than  the  body,  by  so  much  is  spiritual 
worse  than  natural  death.  The  cessation  of  union,  com- 
munion, and  fellowship  with  God  is  so  great  a calamity 
that  death  is  its  fittest  designation.  The  spirit  cut  off 
from  God  as  the  source  of  blessedness  feels  a wretchedness 


168 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


which  language  is  powerless  to  define.  It  may  wander  to 
the  outermost  limits  of  space  in  quest  of  something  to  satisfy 
its  large  desires,  but  that  something  is  not  found.  It  has 
never  been  found,  and  it  never  will  be  found.  The  life  of 
the  soul  is  in  its  union  with  the  blessed  God  ; the  death 
of  the  soul,  not  its  annihilation,  consists  in  its  separation 
from  God.  The  consummation  of  spiritual  death  is  leath 
eternal.  This  consummation  is  sure  to  come,  unless  spirit- 
ual death  is  abolished  by  the  impartation  of  spiritual  life, 
Now,  Jesus,  looking  on  eternal  death,  the  culmination  ot 
spiritual  death,  as  the  greatest  conceivable  evil,  seems  not 
to  have  thought  the  death  of  the  body  worthy  of  mention. 
He  therefore  said,  “ If  a man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall 
never  see  death.”  John  viii.  51.  “ He  shall  not  see  death 

for  ever,”  is  the  more  accurate  translation  of  the  last 
clause.  He  who  keeps  Christ’s  word  will  of  course  die  a 
natural  death,  but,  being  saved  from  spiritual  death,  will 
not  die  for  ever — will  never  see  death  in  the  most  appalling 
sense  of  the  term.  Adam  and  Eve  died  a spiritual  death 
the  very  day  they  sinned  against  God.  They  were  cut  off 
from  him  as  the  source  of  their  happiness  and  joy.  No 
longer  did  they  live  in  the  light  of  his  countenance,  with 
his  complacent  smile  resting  upon  them;  but  they  walked 
in  darkness,  and  trembled  under  the  frown  of  the  Ah 
mighty.  The  garden  of  Eden  was  no  longer  their  home, 
for  they  had  sacrificed  its  delights  and  forfeited  its  pleas- 
ures. They  learned  by  painful  experience  the  lesson 
which  their  posterity  have  been  learning  from  that  sad 
day  till  now — namely,  that  it  is  an  evil  and  bitter  thing  to 
forsake  God.  Jer.  ii.  19.  It  is  written  of  the  apostate  head 
of  our  race,  “ Therefore  the  Lord  God  sent  him  forth  from 
the  garden  of  Eden  to  till  the  ground  from  whence  he 
was  taken.  So  he  drove  out  the  man : and  he  placed  at 
the  east  of  the  garden  of  Eden  cherubim,  and  a flaming 


MAN. 


169 


Bword  which  turned  every  way,  to  keep  the  way  of  the 
tree  of  life.”  Gen.  iii.  23,  24. 


The  Present  State  of  Man. 


We  cannot  suppress  the  sigh  and  the  tear  that  the  origi- 
nal state  of  man  was*  followed  by  his  fall,  and  it  intensifies 
our  sadness  to  know  that  his  fall  was  the  fall  of  all  his 
descendants,  and  therefore  our  fall.  Julius  Caesar  fell  in 
the  senate-chamber  at  Rome,  and  the  great  poet  of  nature 
centuries  after  attributed  certain  words  to  Mark  Antony 
while  pronouncing  the  funeral  oration.  Taking  the  term 
“ countrymen  ” in  its  widest  sense  to  embrace  all  the  in- 
habitants of  the  wrorld,  every  man  may  sav  of  the  day 
of  Adam’s  disobedience, 


“ Oh  what  a fall  was  there,  my  countrymen  I 
Then  you,  and  I,  and  all  of  us  fell  down.” 

The  truth  is  as  resistless  as  an  axiom,  that  the  effects  ot 
Adam’s  sin  were  not  restricted  to  himself,  but  have  been 
transmitted  to  his  posterity.  By  his  posterity  I mean  every 
human  being — beginning  with  Cain  and  Abel — that  hag 
lived  or  is  now  living  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  In  ex- 
pressing myself  thus  definitely  I only  adopt  the  words 
of  Paul  in  Athens  when  he  says,  that  God  “hath  made  of 
one  blood  all  n\tions  of  men  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the 
earth,  and  hath\  determined  the  times  before  appointed, 
and  the  bounds^  of  their  habitation.”  Acts  xvii.  26.  The 
unity  of  the  human  race  has  been  denied  by  philosophers, 
so  colled,  because  they  were  unable  to  reconcile  with  such 
unity  the  discordant  peculiarities  of  different  nations. 
When  the  Bible  speaks,  let  the  philosophy  of  this  world 
keep  silence.  The  passage  just  quoted  asserts  most  posi- 
tively that  “ God  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men.” 
A perfectly  literal  translation  would  be,  “ God  made  out 
15 


170 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


of  one  blood  every  nation  of  men.”  This,  of  course,  means 
that  every  nation,  and  all  the  individuals  composing  every 
nation,  have  descended  from  a common  stock.  There 
liave  not  been  many  bloods ; the  Bible  recognizes  only  “ one 
blood.”  How  could  the  unity  of  the  human  race  be  more 
distinctly  taught?  Then,  too,  the  divine  purpose  is  de- 
clared to  be  that  “ all  nations  of  men  should  dwell  on  all 
the  face  of  the  earth.”  If  all  the  face  of  the  earth  is  to 
be  occupied  by  a population  descended  from  one  blood, 
where  will  a place  be  found  for  any  other  population  ? 
The  Spirit  of  God  in  the  significant  passage  under  review 
must  have  designed  to  meet  and  refute,  through  all  time, 
every  argument  in  favor  of  a plurality  of  races  propagated 
from  different  ancestral  heads.  The  doctrine  of  the  unity 
of  the  human  race  is  vastly  important,  for  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  ruin  comes  through  “ the  first  Adam,”  and  sal- 
vation through  “ the  last  Adam,”  the  Lord  from  heaven. 
But  if  any  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  sustain  no  re- 
lation to  the  first  Adam,  how  can  they  be  brought  into 
union  with  Christ,  “the  last  Adam”?  There  can  be  no 
connection  with  Calvary,  if  there  is  no  connection  with 
Eden.  He  who  cannot  trace  his  natural  lineage  to 
Adam  will  never  trace  his  spiritual  lineage  to  Christ. 

In  illustration  of  the  unity  of  the  race,  it  may  be  said 
that  all  men  are  sinners,  for  sin  is  everywhere  and  has 
been  in  all  generations.  It  has  never  been  confined  to 
the  white  or  the  black  or  the  red  or  the  copper-colored 
peoples  of  the  earth.  It  has  prevailed  with  disastrous 
uniformity  among  all  peoples.  The  highest  mountains 
are  not  barriers  to  its  progress,  nor  do  the  widest  oceans 
stop  its  march  of  ruin  and  desolation. 

All  the  inhabitants  of  the  world,  too,  are  the  subjects 
of  sorrow.  All  men,  however  descended,  have  been 
u born  unto  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  upward.”  Job  v.  7. 


MAN. 


171 


Tears,  the  exponents  of  the  sorrows  of  broken  hearts, 
have  flowed,  and  are  now  flowing  from  human  eyes  in 
every  clime. 

All  men  are  liable  to  disease  and  death.  Physical  suf- 
fering is  universal.  There  is  no  escape  from  it.  Men  of 
every  hue  feel  it.  The  name  of  the  maladies  to  which 
flesh  is  heir  is  legion.  Death  has  swayed  a universal 
sceptre.  His  ravages  have  not  been  circumscribed  by 
the  limits  of  kingdoms  and  empires  and  continents,  but 
have  been  world- wide.  The  stroke  of  mortality  has  fall- 
en indiscriminately  on  all  the  nations,  “ from  the  rising 
of  the  sun  to  the  going  down  of  the  same.” 

Surely,  such  sad  similarities  as  these  would  not  have 
been  illustrated  in  all  lands  and  in  all  centuries  if  the 
nations,  though  differing  in  circumstances,  had  not  been 
substantially  one. 

The  indivisible  unity  of  the  human  race  being  a settled 
point,  it  follows  that  Adam  was  the  head  of  the  race.  He 
was  its  natural  head,  and  it  was  before  the  Fall  that  the 
first  pair  received  the  command,  “ Be  fruitful,  and  multi- 
ply, and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it.”  Gen.  i.  28. 
Their  descendants  were,  according  to  the  divine  arrange- 
ment, to  fill  the  earth.  There  is,  outside  of  the  Bible,  no 
plausible  account  of  the  peopling  of  the  wirld.  We  are 
dependent  on  sacred  history  for  all  satisfactory  informa- 
tion, and  it  is  from  the  word  of  God  alone  that  we  learn 
of  Adam  in  connection  with  the  natural  headship  of  his 
race.  We  regard  him  as  the  ancestral  source  of  human 
existence,  whence  every  human  being  has  lineally  de- 
scended. 

Adam  was  the  representative  of  his  race.  I am  aware 
that  the  Scriptures  do  not  say  in  so  many  words  that  he 
was  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  but  they  say  that 
which  can  be  explained  on  no  other  supposition.  Hence, 


172 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES 


after  the  Fall,  God  said  to  Adam  that  which  was  as  true 
in  his  representative  as  in  his  personal  capacity.  For  ex- 
ample : “ In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till 
thou  return  unto  the  ground ; for  out  of  it  wast  thou 
taken : for  dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  re- 
turn.” Gen.  iii.  19.  Eating  bread  in  the  sweat  of  the  fare 
lias  been  the  universal  law  of  human  ty  from  the  day  cf 
the  expulsion  from  Eden  to  this  day.  There  is  an  estab- 
lished connection  between  eating  bread  and  the  sweat  of 
the  face.  He  who  eats  bread  does  it  in  the  sweat  of  his 
own  face  or  the  sweat  of  another’s  face.  Adam,  after  he 
sinned,  was  obliged  to  extort  from  the  unwilling  soil  the 
means  of  living,  and  his  descendants  are  now  doing  the 
same  thing.  The  toiling  millions  of  earth’s  inhabitants 
are  a monumental  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  words,  “ In 
the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread.”  Many  an  in- 
fidel, while  he  neglects  the  Bible,  is,  in  wiping  the  sweat 
from  his  brow,  a living  illustration  of  one  of  the  truths 
of  the  Bible.  When  God  said  to  Adam,  “ Dust  thou  art, 
and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return,”  he  spoke  to  him  repre- 
sentatively as  well  as  personally.  His  return  to  dust  was 
assured,  and  also  that  of  his  posterity.  The  fearful  sen- 
tence has  been  in  course  of  fulfilment  to  this  hour. 
Nothing  is  going  on  more  constantly  in  this  world,  than 
are  the  pulverizing  processes  of  the  grave.  It  is  as  true 
now  as  when  Solomon  wrote,  that  at  death  “ shall  the 
dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was.”  Eccles.  xii.  7. 

Now,  if  it  be  asked,  why  Adam’s  descendants  suffer  such 
disabilities  and  receive  from  him  so  sad  an  inheritance,  I 
can  only  say,  Because  he  was  by  divine  appointment  con- 
stituted the  covenant  head  of  his  race.  I use  the  term  in 
this  connection  as  denoting  that  arrangement,  that  order, 
that  constitution  of  things,  under  which  Adam  was  made 
and  placed  in  the  garden  of  Eden.  His  position  as  rep- 


MAN 


173 


resentative  of  his  race  was  such  that  if  he  had  retained 
his  integrity  he  would  thereby  have  secured  the  holiness 
of  his  descendants;  but  as  he  swerved  from  his  integrity 
and  sinned  against  God,  he  by  so  doing,  not  only  ruined 
himself,  but  involved  all  his  posterity  in  his  sin  and  in 
its  penal  effects. 

No  one  is  more  fully  convinced  than  the  writer  of 
these  lines  that  it  is  very  easy  to  ask  unanswerable 
questions  concerning  Adam’s  sin  and  its  effects  on  his 
posterity;  and  it  is  well  to  remember  our  liability  to 
“darken  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge.”  It  may 
be  safely  said,  however,  that  from  the  fifth  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  we  may  learn  some  very  import- 
ant truths.  We  are  there  taught  that  “ by  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin ; and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.”  v.  12. 
We  learn  also  that  Adam,  through  whose  transgression 
ruin  came  on  his  race,  was  a figure,  a type,  of  Christ ; 
that  is,  there  was  a resemblance  between  the  two,  which 
is  seen  in  the  fact  that  they  both  acted  in  a representative 
capacity.  The  resemblance  is  seen  in  nothing  else. 
Moreover,  it  was  “by  the  offence  of  the  one”  that  “the 
many  died,”  and  it  was  “by  one  offence”  that  “judg- 
ment came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.”  It  is  very 
observable  that  the  one  man,  Adam,  is  not  only  said  to 
have  brought  ruin  and  death  on  his  race,  but  to  have 
done  this  by  one  offence ; for  I assume  that  in  the  latter 
part  of  verse  16  the  “ many  offences  unto  justification  ” 
are  in  contrast  with  the  “ one  [offence]  to  condemnation.’' 
We  may  suppose,  without  a doubt,  that  the  sins  of  Adam 
after  his  fall  affected  his  posterity  no  more  than  the  sins 
of  another  man.  His  one  specific,  fatal  offence  was 
eating  the  forbidden  fruit.  According  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  God,  abstaining  from  or  eating  that  fruit  was  to 


174 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


decide  the  happy  or  wretched  destiny  of  his  race.  The 
one  oflbnce 

“ Brought  death  into  the  world,  and  all  our  woe.” 

The  fatal  deed  of  Adam,  designated  “sin,”  “transgres- 
sion,” “ offence,”  is  in  verse  19  termed  “ disobedience 
and  it  is  said  that  “ by  one  man’s  disobedience  many 
were  made  sinners.”  They  were  so  united  to  him,  that 
they  stood  in  him  while  he  stood,  and  fell  in  him  when 
he  fell.  Thus  were  they  constituted  sinners. 

Adam’s  apostate  children  have  often  blamed  their 
apostate  ancestor  for  his  disobedience,  but  they  prac- 
tically endorse  it  as  soon  as  they  are  able  to  discern 
between  good  and  evil.  They  invariably  choose  the 
evil  and  reject  the  good.  Their  depraved  nature  shows 
its  depravity  in  their  preference  of  the  ways  of  sin. 
They  love  darkness  rather  than  light.  All  the  teach- 
ings of  history  confirm  the  truth  of  what  the  Bible  says 
about  the  present  state  of  man,  and  show  that  some 
great  disaster  has  spread  itself  over  the  whole  area  of 
humanity.  The  condition  of  fallen  man  is  clearly  de- 
scribed in  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  When  the  apostle 
speaks  of  the  condition  in  which  the  Ephesian  believers 
once  were,  he  describes  the  natural  state  of  every  one  of 
Adam’s  fallen  race : u Who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins;  wherein  in  times  past  ye  walked  according  to  the 
course  of  this  world,  according  to  the  prince  of  the  power 
of  the  air,  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of 
disobedience;  among  whom  also  we  all  had  our  conver- 
sation in  times  past  in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh,  fulfilling  the 
desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind ; and  were  * bv 
nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others.”  Eph.  ii.  1- 
3.  This  represents  man  in  a condition  of  guilt  and  utter 
helplessness,  tie  is  guilty  in  his  helplessness,  and  help- 


MAN ; 


175 


less  in  his  guilt.  He  is  the  subject  of  depravity  and 
condemnation,  equally  impotent  to  counteract  the  former 
or  to  remove  the  latter.  The  apostasy  of  the  race  is 
universal,  and  the  proof  of  it  is  found  everywhere  from 
the  equator  to  the  poles.  “ The  Lord  looked  down  from 
heaven  upon  the  children  of  men,  to  see  if  there  were 
any  that  did  understand,  and  seek  God.  They  are  all 
gone  aside,  they  are  all  together  become  filthy:  there 
is  none  that  doeth  go^d,  no,  not  OAe.' J Ps.  xiv.  2,  3. 


CHAPTER  XU 

MAN  NEEDS  A SAVIOUR. 

This  conclusion  is  irresistible.  It  follows  tLe  sad 
truth  that  man  is  a sinner;  and  this  truth  has  been  made 
evident  in  the  preceding  chapter.  For,  as  we  have  seen, 
Adam,  though  created  holy,  did  not  remain  in  that  state, 
but  by  voluntary  transgression  fell  therefrom,  bringing 
ruin  on  himself  and  his  posterity.  His  sinful  nature  is 
propagated  by  ordinary  generation ; and  the  propagation 
had  an  early  beginning,  for  it  is  said  of  Adam  that  he 
“ begat  a son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image.”  Gen. 
v.  3.  This  declaration  is  specially  worthy  of  notice  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  u God  created  man  in  his  own 
image.”  Gen.  i.  27.  Had  Adam  remained  in  his  state  of 
innocence,  no  doubt  his  children  would  have  been  born 
as  he  was  created,  namely,  in  the  moral  image  of  God. 
But  he  sinned,  and  humanity,  becoming  poisoned  in  its 
source,  has  transmitted  poisonous  streams  only  through 
all  generations.  Paul,  assuming  as  true  the  universal 
corruption  of  human  nature,  refers  to  “ the  children  of 
disobedience,”  and  says,  as  we  have  seen,  that  himself 
and  the  members  of  the  church  of  Ephesus  had  formerly 
a place  among  them : “ Among  whom  also  we  all  had 
our  conversation  in  times  past  in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh, 
fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind  ; and 
176 


MAN  NEEDS  A SAVIOUR. 


177 


were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others.” 
Eph.  ii.  3. 

Children  of  wrath  are  children  of  sin,  and  if  we  are  bv 
nature  children  of  wrath,  we  are  by  nature  children  of 
sin.  Man’s  wretched  condition  as  a sinner,  and  his  con- 
sequent need  of  a Saviour,  are  also  clearly  taught  in  the 
following  portion  of  Scripture:  “For  we  have  before 
proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  that  they  are  all  under 
sin;  as  it  is  written,  There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one: 
there  is  none  that  understandeth,  there  is  none  that 
seeketh  after  God.  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way, 
they  are  together  become  unprofitable:  there  is  none 
that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one.  Their  throat  is  an  open 
sepulchre;  with  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit;  the 
poison  of  asps  is  under  their  lips : whose  mouth  is  full 
of  cursing  and  bitterness.  Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed 
blood.  Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways:  and 
the  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known.  There  is  no 
fear  of  God  before  their  eyes.  Now  we  know  that  what 
things  soever  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  who  are 
under  the  law:  that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  and 
all  the  world  may  become  guilty  before  God.”  Rom.  iii. 
9-19. 

This  is  a very  severe  indictment  of  the  human  race, 
for  it  includes  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the  two  divisions  of 
the  race,  and  declares  all  guilty  before  God.  Every 
mouth  is  stopped  in  view  of  the  just  sentence  of  condern 
nation  pronounced  by  the  law.  This  is  what  is  usually 
called  the  moral  law,  the  only  law  whose  jurisdiction  ex- 
tends to  “ all  the  world.”  It  is  manifest  that  the  foregoing 
scripture  teaches  man’s  condemnation  and  his  depravity. 
He  is  condemned  because  he  has  transgressed  the  law  of 
God,  and  the  justice  of  the  sentence  of  condemnation  is 
so  undeniable  that  his  “ mouth  is  stopped ;”  that  is,  he 


178 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


can  give  no  reason  why  the  sentence  should  not  be 

executed. 

As  to  man’s  depravity,  it  is  clearly  seen  in  his  not  seeking 
after  God.  He  does  not  seek  after  God,  because  he  does  not 
love  him  ; and  not  to  love  God  is  the  essence  of  depravity. 
When  the  throat  is  declared  to  be  an  open  sepulchre  the 
repulsive  corruption  of  the  heart  is  indicated.  An  open 
sepulchre  sends  forth  from  a putrefying  corpse  the  most 
offensive  effluvia.  What,  then,  must  be  the  state  of  man’s 
heart  when  his  throat,  which  gives  vent  to  what  is  in  his 
heart,  is  “an  open  sepulchre”?  When  the  tongue  uses 
deceit,  it  is  because  the  heart  is  deceitful;  when  the  poison 
of  asps  is  under  the  lips,  there  is  always  poison  in  the 
heart;  when  the  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness, 
the  cursing  and  bitterness  are  first  in  the  heart;  and 
when  the  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood,  it  is  the  heart 
whose  murderous  impulses  give  swiftness  to  the  move- 
ments of  the  feet.  The  heart  is  the  seat  of  depravity. 
What  says  Jesus  the  great  Teacher? — “For  from  within, 
out  of  the  heart  of  men,  proceed  evil  thoughts,  adulteries, 
fornications,  murders,  thefts,  covetousness,  wuckedness,  de- 
ceit, lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye,  blasphemy,  pride,  foolish- 
ness : all  these  evil  things  come  from  within,  and  defile  the 
man.”  Mark  vii.  21-23.  What  a corrupt,  polluted  thing 
the  natural  heart  is!  How  imperative  the  necessity  of 
a new  heart  if  man  is  to  be  saved  ! Salvation  must  have 
an  indispensable  connection  with  a change  of  heart. 

Now,  to  show  that  man  needs  a Saviour,  it  is  only  ne- 
cessary to  show  that  he  cannot  by  anything  he  can  do  re- 
move the  obstacles  out  of  the  way  of  his  salvation.  These 
obstacles  may  be  termed  legal  and  moral . The  former  are 
embraced  in  condemnation,  and  the  latter  are  compre- 
hended in  depravity.  These  topics  require  distinct  and 
earnest  discussion  : 


MAN  NEEDS  A SAVIOUR. 


179 


1.  Condemnation.  I use  this  term  to  denote  man’s  just 
exposure  to  the  curse  of  the  divine  law.  The  wrath  of 
God  abides  on  him.  The  curse  of  the  law  is  a righteous 
curse,  and  the  wrath  of  God  is  righteous  wrath.  This 
will  be  seen  if  we  consider  that  “ the  law  is  holy,  and  the 
commandment  holy,  and  just,  and  good.”  Rom.  vii.  12.  It 
must,  then,  be  a transcript  of  the  moral  excellence  of  the 
divine  character.  All  that  is  meant  by  holiness,  justice, 
and  goodness  belongs  to  the  law,  and  it  is  therefore  a per- 
fect law.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  it  has  a pen- 
alty, for  this  is  characteristic  of  all  lav/.  Divested  of  pen- 
alty, law  would  become  mere  advice,  which  might  be 
taken  or  rejected  at  pleasure.  If  penalty  belongs  to  law, 
the  better  the  law,  the  severer  should  its  penalty  be.  The 
reason  is,  the  better  the  law,  the  stronger  the  motives  to 
obedience  and  the  greater  the  guilt  of  disobedience.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  very  perfection  of  God’s  law 
requires  that  there  shall  be  embodied  in  its  penalty  a 
righteous  severity,  of  which  all  our  conceptions  are  prob- 
ably very  inadequate.  If  penalty  as  well  as  precept  is  a 
part  of  God’s  law,  then  both  are  “ holy,  and  just,  and 
good.”  That  is,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  apply  these  epi- 
thets to  the  precept  and  withhold  them  from  the  penalty. 
They  are  as  applicable  to  the  one  as  to  the  other.  If  the 
“ holy,  and  just,  and  good  ” precepts  of  the  law  are  trails- 
gressed,  the  transgressor  exposes  himself  to  the  “holy, 
and  just,  and  good”  penalty  of  the  law.  The  penalty, 
being  a righteous  one,  should  be  executed,  unless  some- 
thing can  be  done  to  render  its  remission  consistent  with 
righteousness.  Can  man  do  this  ? If  so,  it  must  be  ac- 
complished by  what  he  does  or  by  what  he  suffers,  or  by 
a combination  of  doing  and  suffering.  As  to  doing,  it  is 
clear  that  nothing  can  be  done  by  man  in  the  way  of 
atoning  for  his  sins,  unless  he  is  able  to  do  more  than  the 


180 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


divine  law  requires,  so  that  the  superfluous  obedience  of 
the  present  and  the  future  may  make  up  for  the  failures 
of  the  past.  But  is  superfluous  obedience  a possible 
thing?  Obviously  not;  for  “ the  first  and  great  com- 
mandment” of  the  law  says,  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy  strength.”  Mark  xii. 
30.  If  all  the  strength  that  man  possesses  is  to  be  ex- 
pended in  the  love  and  service  of  God,  it  is  manifest  that 
he  can  do  no  more  than  this.  All  is  all.  His  obedience 
must  be  continuous,  filling  up  the  measure  of  every  mo- 
ment. If  for  the  present  moment  and  every  future  mo- 
ment of  his  life  his  obedience  is  perfect,  he  only  meets  the 
obligations  of  duty — does  nothing  more;  and  what  does 
Jesus  say? — “So  likewise  ye,  when  ye  shall  have  done  all 
those  things  which  are  commanded  you,  say,  We  are  un- 
profitable servants : wre  have  done  that  which  was  our 
duty  to  do.”  Luke  xvii.  10.  This  passage  at  once  and 
for  ever  explodes  the  idea  of  a sinner  saving  himself  by 
his  own  merit.  There  can  be  no  merit  on  the  part  of  a 
sinful  man,  unless  he  can  do  more  than  his  duty,  which 
is  impossible.  Suppose  man,  however,  to  do  all  his  duty 
from  this  hour  to  his  dying  hour,  still  the  government  of 
God  holds  him  justly  chargeable  with  all  the  sins  of  bis 
past  life.  What  is  to  be  done  with  them  ? What  disposal 
is  to  be  made  of  them?  Man  cannot  dispose  of  them  at 
all,  for  he  can  do  nothing  with  them.  He  cannot  change 
the  past,  nor  can  he  bring  God  under  obligation  to  change 
it.  He  is  under  the  penalty  of  the  divine  law,  and  can  do 
nothing  that  will  so  honor  the  law  as  to  justify  the  remis- 
sion of  its  penalty.  Release  from  condemnation  by  man’s 
works  is  plainly  impossible.  “ By  the  deeds  of  the  law 
there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight.”  Rom.  iii 
20. 


MAN  NEEDS  A SAVIOUR . 


181 


What,  then,  is  to  be  said  of  suffering?  If  man  cannot 
save  himself  by  doing,  can  he  save  himself  by  suffering? 
It  is  needless  to  speak  of  the  sufferings  of  this  world,  for 
they  are  a very  small  part  of  the  penalty  of  the  law. 
Eternal  death  is  the  truly  awful  part  of  the  penalty. 
This  we  have  seen  in  what  was  said  of  the  fearful  words, 
uIn  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely 
die.”  Gen.  ii.  17.  The  same  truth  is  taught  in  Rom.  vi, 
23:  “For  the  wages  of  sin.  is  death;  but  the  gift  of  God 
is  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.”  There  can 
be  no  consistent  interpretation  of  this  passage  which  does 
not  make  the  life  and  the  death  equal  in  duration,  for  the 
death  is  in  direct  contrast  with  the  eternal  life.  Now,  if 
the  penalty  of  the  law  involves  the  eternal  death  of  the 
sinner,  and  if  eternal  death  involves  eternal  suffering, 
then  it  is  clearly  true  that  man  by  suffering  cannot  re- 
lease himself  from  the  condemnation  which  rests  on  him. 
The  suffering  will  be  commensurate  with  eternity,  and  we 
can  form  no  idea  of  anything  which  outreaches  eternity. 
How,  then,  can  the  suffering  of  a creature  make  it  either 
proper  or  possible  to  remit  the  penalty  of  the  law  when 
the  exhaustion  of  the  penalty  requires  eternal  suffering? 

We  may  surely  conclude  that  man,  neither  by  doing 
nor  suffering,  can  save  himself  from  condemnation.  If 
the  doing  by  itself  is  insufficient,  and  if  the  suffering  by 
itself  is  insufficient,  it  needs  no  argument  to  show  that 
the  doing  and  the  suffering  combined  are  insufficient.  It 
follows  that  the  legal  obstacles  in  the  way  of  man’s  sal- 
vation cannot  be  removed  by  man.  He  rests  under  the 
condemnation  of  the  law,  and  there  he  must  remain  for 
ever  if  there  is  for  him  no  deliverance  but  self-deliver- 
ance. How  sad  is  man’s  state ! He  is  justly  condemned, 
and  utterly  helpless  in  his  condemnation.  The  thunders 
of  the  divine  law  roll  over  his  head  and  strike  terror  to 
lfi 


182 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES, 


his  soul,  but  he  can  do  nothing  to  silence  those  thunders. 
He  must  hear  them  fo~  ever,  unless  salvation  shall  come 
from  a source  outside  of  himself.  This  is  the  only 
ground  of  hope. 

'^^^epravity.  It  has  been  said  that  in  depravity  are 
comprehended  the  moral  obstacles  in  the  way  of  man’s 
salvation.  Man,  in  his  natural  state,  is  the  enemy  of 
Godj  I use  the  term  in  its  widest  sense,  as  embracing  the 
wfiole  human  race.  We  have. seen  that,  according  to  the 
inspired  utterances  of  Paul,  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  in- 
volved in  the  miseries  of  a common  apostasy.  His  argu- 
ment is  that  the  Gentiles,  though  less  favored  than  the 
Jews,  had  sufficient  knowledge  of  God  and  of  their  rela- 
tion to  him  to  leave  them  without  excuse  for  their  idol- 
atry. More  than  this : their  idolatry  was  not  the  cause, 
but  the  effect,  of  their  depravity.  For  the  sake  of  illustra- 
tion, it  may  be  said  that  depravity  was  the  moral  disease 
under  which  they  were  laboring,  while  idolatry  was  but  a 
symptom  of  the  disease.  To  the  Jews,  with  their  superior 
advantages,  Jesus  said,  “ Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,” 
and  “ I know  you,  that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in 
you.’*  John  viii.  44;  vi.  42. ^In  all  ages  and  in  all  climes 
the  carnal  mind  has  been  “ enmitv  against  GoddL*) 
^-N^hether  man  is  totally  depraved  has  often  been  the 
subject  of  theological  discussion.  In  discussing  any 
question,  the  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  ascertain  the 
precise  meaning  of  the  terms  in  which  it  is  expressed. 
If  by  “ total  depravity  ” it  is  meant  that  man  is  as  bad  as 
he  can  beft  the  doctrine  receives  no  human  illustration ; 
for  the  Bible  represents  wicked  men  as  becoming  i(  worse 
and  worse.”  Nor  can  we  suppose  that  Mien  angels,  and 
the  chief  of  them,  Satan  himself,  are  as  bad  as  they  can 
be.  They  are,  doubtless,  in  a state  of  progressive  moral 
deterioration — growing  worse  and  worse  as  in  charactei 


MAN  NEEDS  A SAVIOUR. 


183 


<^ke 


they  become  less  and  less  like  God.  “Total  depravity” 
in  this  sense  of  the  phrase  has  no  exemplification  on 
earth  or  in  hell. 

ITe  correct  meaning  of  “ total  depravity  ” is  entire  des- 
titution of  holiness^Man  is  totally  depraved  in  the  sense 
that  there  is  in  his  heart  no  love  to  Gody  We  see  in  many 
unregenerate  persons  an  exhibition  of  amiable  qualities 
and  social  virtues  which  renders  them  desirable  neigh- 
bors and  useful  citizens,  but  there  is  in  them  no  spark  of 
holiness.  The  influence  of  many  things  that  they  say 
and  do  may  be  beneficial  to  society,  and  even  to  the  world 
at  large,  but  they  do  nothing  with  a view  to  the  glory  of 
God.  They  are  not  prompted  by  the  high  and  holy  mo- 
tive which  the  Bible  recognizes  and  approves.  The  rea- 
son is  they  do  not  love  God,  and  therefore  care  not  for  his 
glory.  Who  can  ask  for  a stronger  argument  to  prove 
man’s  total  depravity,  than  the  fact  that  he  is  totally  des- 
titute of  love  to  God,  and,  consequently,  totally  destitute 
of  holiness?  *T^e  depravity  of  man  shows  itself  every- 
where on  the  face  of  the  wide  earth.  In  civilized  and  in 
savage  climes — where  intelligence  triumphs  and  where 
ignorance  reigns — where  despotism  forges  its  fetters  and 
where  all  men  are  free — “ from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to 
the  going  down  of  the  same  ” — man  is  a depraved  crea- 
ture. He  may  leave  the  land  of  his  birth,  sail  across  the 
sea,  and  wander  over  foreign  realms,  but  wherever  he  goes 
or  wherever  he  stays  he  has  within  him  a sinful  and  a cor- 
rupt hear^J 

Now,  the  question  is  as  to  the  counteraction  and  the  re- 
moval of  this  depravity,  which  has  alienated  man  from 
God.  Will  man  himself  start  some  counteracting  pro- 
cess? He  does  not  wish  his  depravity  counteracted.  He 
will  make  no  effort  to  remove  his  moral  corruption,  for 
he  does  not  desire  its  removal.  He  is  satisfied  wflth  the 


184 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


state  of  his  heart,  and  lives  according  to  its  inclinations. 
He  is  the  voluntary  slave  of  sin,  and  is  therefore  pleased 
with  the  slavery.  Here,  too,  we  may  see  that  if  man 
could  save  himself  from  condemnation — a thing,  as  we 
have  seen,  impossible — he  would,  under  the  impulses  of 
his  depravity,  sin  again  and  fall  once  more  into  condem- 
nation. In  short,  if  he  could  remove  the  legal  barriers 
out  of  the  way  of  his  salvation,  the  existence  of  moral 
. barriers  would  render  certain  the  creation  of  other  legal 
barriers. 

Such  is  the  powerful  dominion  of  depravity  over  the 
heart  of  man,  that  it  can  never  be  broken  by  influences 
originating  within  the  heart  itself.  They  must  come 
from  without  if  they  come  at  all.  Man,  being  not  only  a 
sinner,  but  in  love  with  sin,  does  not  wish  to  be  holy. 
He  cannot  desire  holiness  while  he  takes  pleasure  in  sin; 
and  even  if  he  had  all  the  “ ability  ” that  has  ever  been 
claimed  for  him,  it  is  morally  certain  that  he  would  not 
exercise  it.  It  is  as  unreasonable  as  it  is  unscriptural  to 
expect  sinful  creatures  to  act  in  opposition  to  the  pre- 
vailing inclinations  of  their  hearts.  Hence  I argue  that 
man  cannot  remove  the  moral  obstacles  out  of  the  way  of 
his  salvation.  They  are  as  incapable  of  removal  by  hu- 
man agency  as  are  the  legal  obstacles  already  considered. 
Truly,  man  is  in  a state  of  ruin,  from  which  he  is  utterly 
powerless  to  save  himself.  Self-help  is  impossible.  We 
know  what  self-ruin  means,  but  we  shall  never  know 
what  self-salvation  is, 

In  view  of  the  considerations  now  presented,  it  is  as 
clear  as  the  sun  in  heaven  that  man  needs  a Saviour. 
This  is  his  great  need.  All  other  necessities  are  trivial 
as  compared  with  the  necessity  of  salvation.  {Man  needs 
a Saviour  to  do  for  him  what  he  cannot  do  for  himself 
He  is  in  moral  darkness,  and  needs  spiritual  illumina- 


MAN  NEEDS  A SAVIOUB. 


185 


tion ; he  is  in  a condemned  state,  and  needs  justifica- 
tion ; he  is  the  captive  of  Satan,  and  needs  deliverance ; 
he  has  a depraved  heart,  and  needs  regeneratidfir^ 

The  heading  of  this  chapter — “ Man  Needs  a Savour — r 
would  only  torment  him  before  the  time  if  there  were  no 
Saviour.  Indeed,  it  would  be  the  refinement  of  cruelty 
to  remind  man  of  his  urgent,  perishing  need,  without  tell- 
ing him  how  that  need  can  be  supplied.  There  is  a Sa- 
viour. “ This  is  a faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  accep- 
tation, that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sin- 
ners.” 1 Tim.  i.  15.  It  will  be  my  business  in  future 
chapters  to  call  attention  to  the  person  and  work  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  thus  showing  that  he  is  the  very  Saviour  that 
man  needs,  the  “ only-begotten  Son,”  whom  God  gave 
“ that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life.”  John  iii.  16. 

if  » 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  PROMISED  SAVIOUR. 

If,  as  has  been  shown,  man  needs  a Saviour,  it  is  a mat- 
ter of  the  greatest  importance  to  know  whether  a Saviour 
has  been  provided.  On  this  point  we  get  no  information 
from  the  light  of  Nature  or  the  teachings  of  human  phil- 
osophy ; because  the  science  of  salvation  is  above  Na- 
ture, and  comes  not  within  the  realm  of  man’s  philoso- 
phy. We  must  turn  to  the  Bible  if  we  would  know  what 
salvation  is,  and  who  is  the  Saviour. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  first  intimation  of 
mercy  to  our  race  was  given  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  im 
mediately  after  the  Fall  and  just  before  the  expulsion  of 
Adam  and  Eve.  It  is  found  in  connection  with  the  curse 
pronounced  on  the  serpent.  The  words  are  God’s,  and 
they  are  these:  find  I will  put  enmity  between  thee 
and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed ; it 
shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel*’) 
Gen.  iii.  15.  It  is  quite  worthy  of  notice  that  the  seed  of 
the  woman,  and  not  of  the  man,  is  referred  to.  The  lan- 
guage seems  to  he  ^gjgnhetic  of  the  miraculous  birth  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  RHis  body  was  not  produced  by  ordi- 
nary generation,  but  by  the  supernatural  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  He  therefore  escaped  the  depravity  trans- 
mitted by  Adam  to  all  his  lineal  descendants.  Paul  ex- 
presses the  same  idea  more  definitely  as  follows : “ But 
186 


THE  PROMISED  SAVIOUR . 


187 


when  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth 
his  Son,  made  of  a woman,  made  under  the  law.”  Gal. 
iv.  4.  The  words  “ made  of  a woman  ” suggest  a peculiar 
relation  to  the  female  sex — a relation  not  sustained  to  the 
other  sex — a relation  created  by  the  miraculous  formation 
of  the  body  of  Jesus  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
The  promised  Saviour  was  to  be  “ the  seed  of  the 
woman.” 

Centuries  rolled  away,  and  there  was  a renewal  of  the 
promise  concerning  the  Christ.  After  the  expiration  of 
two  thousand  years,  Abraham  was  called  to  leave  his 
country  and  to  go  to  a land  which  the  Lord  would  show 
him.  At  this  time,  God  said  to  Abraham,  “ In  thee  shall 
all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed.”  Gen,  xii.  3.  Subse- 
quently, just  before  the  destruction  of  Sodom,  the  Lord 
said  of  Abraham,  “ All  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be 
blessed  in  him.”  Gen.  xviii.  18.  After  the  offering  of 
Isaac  on  the  altar,  Jehovah  said  to  Abraham,  “And  in 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.” 
Gen.  xxii.  18.  The  nations  were  of  course  to  be  blessed 
in  Abraham’s  seed,  but  the  fact  was-  not  stated  in  so 
many  words  till  after  the  offering  of  Isaac.  As  to  the 
seed  of  Abraham  we  may  learn  much  from  Paul,  who 
says,  “Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises 
made!  He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many ; but  as 
of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.”  Gal.  iii.  16. 
The  apostle  under  inspiration  seized  hold  of  the  import- 
ant fact  that  the  seed  of  Abraham  is  Christ,  in  whom  all 
nations  are  to  be  blessed.  Thus  the  promised  Saviour 
was  known  to  Abraham,  of  whom  Jesus  said  to  the  Jews, 
“Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day:  and  he 
saw  it,  and  was  glad.”  John  viii.  56.  ' 

There  are  in  the  Old  Testament  so  many  references  to 
the  promised  Saviour,  that  they  cannot  be  referred  to  in 


188 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


detail.  His  coming  is  predicted  the  prophets,  and  it 
is  assumed  by  them  that  he  would  come  to  suffer  and  to 
die.  That  they  did  not  fully  understand  their  predictions 
is  manifest  from  the  words  of  Peter : “ Of  which  salvation 
the  prophets  have  inquired  and  searched  diligently,  who 
prophesied  of  the  grace  that  should  come  unto  you: 
searching  what,  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  which  was  in  them  did  signify,  when  it  testified 
beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glory  that 
should  follow.”  1 Pet.  i.  10,  11. 

It  may  have  been  that  the  prophets  themselves  were  in 
some  degree  influenced  by  the  Jewish  opinion  that  the 
Messiah  would  come  to  live  and  reign,  and  not  to  suffer 
and  die.  We  may  be  sure  that  it  is  next  to  impossible 
for  us  to  imagine  how  difficult  it  was  for  Jews  of  Old 
Testament  times  to  unite  the  two  ideas  of  humiliation 
and  exaltation  in  the  person  of  the  Christ.  No  man,  so 
far  as  we  know,  was  competent  to  the  task  till  the  rich 
effusions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  granted  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  Till  then  the  apostles,  though  they  had  en- 
joyed the  personal  instructions  of  Jesus,  were  in  com- 
parative darkness. 

“ What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?”  is  a question  of  infinite 
importance.  Is  he  the  promised  Saviour,  whose  coming 
was  foretold  by  the  prophets?  Do  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  refer  to  him?  Of  these  very  writings  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  said,  “They  are  they  which  testify  of  me.” 
John  v.  39.  On  the  day  of  his  resurrection  we  are  told 
of  his  interview  with  two  disciples  as  they  “ went  into  the 
country,”  and  it  is  said  that,  “beginning  at  Moses  and  all 
the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scrip- 
tures the  things  concerning  himself.”  Luke  xxiv.  27. 
There  are,  then,  in  the  Scriptures  things  concerning 
Jesus  Christ,  and  these  things,  having  leference  the 


THE  PROMISED  SAVIOUR. 


189 


Old  Testament,  are  chiefly  prpphetic.  Without  attempt- 
ing an  exhaustive  reference  to  the  prophecies  relating  to 
the  Messiah,  I shall  mention  certain  classes  of  predictions, 
with  a view  of  showing  that  the}"  have  been  fulfilled  in 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Ay,  more — that  if  they  have  not 
been  fulfilled  in  him,  they  can  never  be  fulfilled  at  alh 
May  God  enable  me  to  present  the  matter  in  such  a light 
as  to  show  that  the  promised  Deliverer  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  the  Jehovah-Jesus  of  the  New  Testament! 

The  classes  of  predictions  alluded  to  are  such  as  the 
following:  Those  that  refer  to — 

1.  The  tribe  and  family  to  which  he  belongs.  As  to  the 
tribe,  we  have  definite  information  in  the  following 
words:  “The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  nor  a 
lawgiver  from  between  his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come ; and 
unto  him  shall  the  gathering  of  the  people  be.”  Gen. 
xlix.  10.  From  1 Chron.  v.  1,  2 we  learn  that  “ Reuben, 
the  first-born  of  Israel,”  by  an  atrocious  crime  forfeited 
“the  birthright”  which  “was  given  unto  the  sons  of  Jo- 
seph.” The  sacred  historian  tells  us,  however,  that  “the 
genealogy  is  not  to  be  reckoned  after  the  birthright;”  and 
the  explanation  is  that  “ Judah  prevailed  above  his  breth- 
ren, and  of  him  came  the  chief  ruler.” 

In  exposition  of  the  words  of  Jacob  already  quoted  I 
make  the  following  extract  from  the  “ Annotated  Para- 
graph Bible :”  “ Having  announced  the  sovereignty  of 
Judah,  the  patriarch  goes  on  to  declare  that  it  should 
have  no  end  until  one  should  come  bearing  the  name  of 
‘Shiloh,’  whose  sway  both  Israel  and  all  mankind  should 
acknowledge.  The  subsequent  history  presents  the  ful- 
filment of  this  prediction.  In  the  journeyings  of  the  Is- 
raelites through  the  wilderness,  and  under  the  theocracy  in 
the  Promised  Land,  this  tribe  took  the  precedence;  after 
the  return  from  Babylon  it  absorbed  the  others  and  gave 


190 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


its  name  to  the  whole  nation ; and  even  under  the  domin- 
ion of  the  Romans  it  retained  a measure  of  authority. 
But  on  the  appearance  of  Christ  all  this  quickly  passed 
away,  to  make  room  for  the  spiritual  and  universal  reign 
of  the  Prince  of  Peace.” 

It  is  needless  to  say  more  of  the  tribe  from  which 
the  promised  Saviour  was  to  come,  and  in  the  New 
rIestament  we  read,  “It  is  evident  that  our  Lord  sprang 
out  of  Judah.”  Heb.  vii.  14.  If  the  prediction  of  the 
dying  Jacob  has  not  been  fulfilled  in  Jesus  Christ,  it 
can  never  be  fulfilled.  The  conditions  of  its  fulfilment 
once  existed,  but  they  can  never  exist  again. 

As  to  the  family  honored  by  its  connection  with  the 
promised  Saviour,  it  is  without  doubt  the  family  of 
David.  God  said  to  him,  “ Of  the  fruit  of  thy  body  will 
I set  upon  thy  throne.”  Ps.  cxxxii.  11.  The  universal 
expectation  of  the  Jews  was  that  the  Messiah  would  be 
the  descendant  of  David.  When,  therefore,  Jesus  asked 
the  Pharisees,  “What  think  ye  of  Christ?  whose  son  is 
he?  they  say  unto  him,  The  Son  of  David.”  Matt.  xxii. 
42.  The  multitudes  also  at  his  triumphant  entry  into 
Jerusalem  cried,  “Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David!”  Matt, 
xxi.  9.  Paul  says  of  Christ  that  he  “ was  made  of  the 
seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh  ” (Rom.  i.  3),  and 
Jesus  himself  says,  “ I am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of 
David.”  Rev.  xxii.  16.  We  have  nc  need  of  additional 
testimony.  It  is  not  historically  possible  to  show  that  any 
one  except  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is,  in  the  sense  of  these  pas- 
sages, the  “ Son,”  the  “ seed,”  the  “ offspring,”  of  David. 

2.  The  time  of  his  coming . Of  this  there  is  all  the  cer- 
tainty that  can  be  desired.  An  important  prophecy  reads 
thus : “ Know  therefore  and  understand,  that  from  the 
going  forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore  and  to  build 
Jerusalem,  unto  the  Messiah  the  Prince,  shall  be  seven 


THE  PROMISED  SAVIOUR . 


191 


weeks  and  threescore  and  two  weeks : the  street  shall  be 
built  again,  and  the  wall,  even  in  troublous  times.  And 
after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off, 
but  not  for  himself.”  Dan.  ix.  25,  26. 

I take  it  for  granted  that  in  the  “ weeks”  here  men- 
tioned every  day  represents  a year.  With  this  under- 
standing we  see  that  the  periods  of  time  designated  must 
have  expired  about  the  year  of  the  world  4000.  It  is  per- 
haps not  possible  to  make  a perfectly  accurate  statement 
on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  knowing  what  “ command- 
ment ” is  referred  to.  There  were  more  commandments 
than  one.  Hence  we  read,  “ And  they  builded,  and 
finished  it,  according  to  the  commandment  of  the  God  of 
Israel,  and  according  to  the  commandment  of  Cyrus,  and 
Darius,  and  Artaxerxes,  king  of  Persia.”  Ez.  vi.  14.  The 
general  opinion  is  that  from  the  last  of  these  kings  Ezra 
the  scribe  received  all  needful  help,  and  with  a large 
company  of  exiles  returned  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem 
about  the  year  457  before  Christ.  This  of  course  was 
some  years  after  “ the  commandment  of  Cyrus ;”  but  we 
can  see  with  sufficient  certainty  at  what  time  the  prom- 
ised Saviour  was  to  come. 

From  the  prophecy  of  Haggai  we  learn  that  the  second 
temple  was  to  be  superior  to  the  first.  The  superiority, 
however,  was  not  to  be  in  splendor  and  beauty  of  archi- 
tecture, but  in  the  personal  presence  of  “ the  Desire  of  all 
nations :”  “ And  the  Desire  of  all  nations  shall  come : 
and  I will  fill  this  house  with  glory,  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts.  The  silver  is  mine,  and  the  gold  is  mine,  saith 
the  Lord  of  hosts.  The  glory  of  this  latter  house  shall 
be  greater  than  of  the  former,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.” 
Hag.  ii.  7-9. 

The  Messiah  is  “the  Desire  of  all  nations,”  and  his 
presence  rendered  the  second  temple  more  ilftistrious 


192 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


than  the  first.  The  words  of  God  through  the  prophet 
were  verified  when  Jesus  of  Nazareth  appeared  in  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  and  taught  the  lessons  of  salvation. 
We  learn  from  the  prophecy  that  the  promised  Saviour 
was  to  come  during  the  existence  of  the  second  temple, 
and  therefore  at  some  period  between  the  commandment 
to  rebuild  Jerusalem  and  the  destruction  of  the  city  in 
(lie  year  of  our  Lord  70.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  came  at  the 
time  when  God  by  the  prophet  said  “ the  Desire  of  all  na- 
tions ” would. come.  Is  he  not,  therefore,  “the  Desire  of 
all  nations”?  No  man  of  sane  mind  will  say  that  dur- 
ing the  centuries  referred  to  the  second  temple  was  made 
more  glorious  than  the  first  by  the  personal  presence  and 
teaching  of  any  one  except  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  I may 
say,  then,  that  the  prophecy  has  been  fulfilled  in  him. 
If  this  is  denied,  the  denial  is  a virtual  declaration  that 
the  prophecy  is  unfulfilled;  and  if  so,  its  fulfilment  is 
impossible,  for  the  second  temple  was  destroyed  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago,  and  can  never  exist  again. 

3.  The  place  of  his  birth . The  most  striking  prediction 
bearing  on  this  point  is  the  following:  “But  thou, 
Bethlehem  Ephratali,  though  thou  be  little  among  the 
thousands  of  Judah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come 
forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel;  whose 
goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting.” 
Mic.  v.  2. 

That  the  birth  of  the  Messiah,  when  he  came,  would 
take  place  at  Bethlehem  of  Judea,  was  the  opinion  of  all 
the  Jews.  When,  therefore,  Herod  inquired  of  “the  chief 
priests  and  scribes  of  the  people  ” where  “ Christ  should 
be  born,”  they  said,  “In  Bethlehem  of  Judea.”  During 
the  Saviour’s  ministry  “the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees” 
once  attempted  to  discredit  his  claim  to  be  a prophet  by 
assuming  that  he  was  born  in  Galilee;  and  then  they 


THE  PROMISED  SAVIOUR. 


193 


said,  “ Out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no  prophet.”  John  vii.  52. 
Humanly  speaking,  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  Bethlehem  was 
very  remarkable.  His  mother  was  a resident  of  Nazareth, 
as  we  see  from  these  words : “ And  in  the  sixth  month 
the  angel  Gabriel  was  sent  from  God,  unto  a city  of 
Galilee,  named  Nazareth,  to  a virgin  espoused  to  a man 
whose  name  was  Joseph,  of  the  house  of  David;  and  the 
virgin’s  name  was  Mary.”  Luke  i.  26,  27.  Joseph,  the 
reputed  father  of  Jesus,  lived  at  Nazareth,  and  most 
probably  died  there.  Why  he  did  not  live  at  Bethlehem, 
as  he  “ was  of  the  house  and  lineage  of  David  ” (Luke 
ii.  4),  we  do  not  know;  we  only  know  that  in  obedience 
to  the  edict  of  Augustus,  the  Roman  emperor,  he  went 
to  Bethlehem  to  be  taxed — or  rather  enrolled — because 
of  his  connection  with  the  family  of  David.  Bethlehem 
was  some  distance  from  Nazareth.  Why  was  it  not  suf- 
ficient for  Joseph  to  go  alone?  Why  was  it  necessary 
for  Mary  to  perform  the  laborious  journey?  I do  not 
know  that  we  can  answer  these  questions,  but  we  may 
reasonably  believe  that  it  was  not  sufficient  for  Joseph 
to  go  alone,  and  that  it  was  necessary  for  Mary  to  make 
the  journey.  However  this  may  have  been,  the  decree 
of  Augustus  was  the  means  of  making  Bethlehem  the 
birthplace  of  Jesus  Christ.  Nothing  was  further  from 
the  design  of  the  emperor,  but  the  God  of  heaven  over- 
ruled the  imperial  decree  for  the  accomplishment  of  a 
great  prophecy.  Thus  was  the  angel  of  the  Lord  author- 
ized to  say  to  the  trembling  shepherds,  “Fear  not;  for, 
behold,  I bring  you  good  tidings  of  great  joy,  which  shall 
be  to  all  people.  For  unto  you  is  born  this  day,  in  the 
city  of  David,  a Saviour,  who  is  Christ  the  Lord.”  Luke 
ii.  10, 11.  The  promised  Saviour  was  born  in  Bethlehem, 
and  that  Saviour  is  the  Lord  of  glory.  No  birth  but  his 
has  conferred  earthly  immortality  on  Bethlehem. 

17 


194 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


4.  The  treatment  he  was  to  receive . Isaiah  had  prophesied 
(chapter  53)  that  he  would  be  “ despised  and  rejected  of 
men,”  and  that  for  very  shame  they  would  hide  their  faces 
from  him.  The  prophets  had  expressed  all  the  reproach 
and  contempt  of  men  in  saying,  u He  shall  be  called  a 
Nazarene.”  Matt.  ii.  23.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  no 
one  prophet  is  named.  The  language  is,  “ that  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophets.”  The 
idea  clearly  is  that,  according  to  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets,  the  Messiah  would  be  the  object  of  contemptu- 
ous reproach.  For  Nazareth  was  in  bad  repute.  Indeed, 
there  seems  to  have  been  a sort  of  interrogative  proverb 
in  circulation  among  the  people — Can  there  any  good 
thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?”  John  i.  46.  Even  Na- 
thanael, a guileless  Israelite,  was  prejudiced  against 
the  place. 

The  contemptuous  treatment  which  the  prophets  said 
the  promised  Saviour  would  receive  was  received  by 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  His  name  was  cast  out  as  evil.  His 
enemies  said,  “ Behold,  a man  gluttonous,  and  a wine- 
bibber,  a friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.”  Matt.  xi.  19. 
They  meant,  not  only  that  he  was  the  associate  of  “ pub- 
licans and  sinners,”  but  that  he  was  as  bad  as  they. 
When  his  expulsion  of  demons  w’as  too  manifest  to  be  de- 
nied, the  Pharisees  said,  “ This  fellow  doth  not  cast  out  de- 
mons, but  by  Beelzebub  the  prince  of  the  demons.”  Math 
xii.  24.  Thus  they  charged  that  Jesus  acted  in  concert 
with  Satan  himself.  There  could  not  be  an  imputation 
of  greater  wickedness  than  this.  When  his  enemies  de- 
termined to  secure  the  condemnation  and  death  of  Christ, 
they  presented  two  counts  in  the  indictment  against 
him — blasphemy  and  sedition.  There  was  a malicious 
shrewdness  in  this,  for  it  was  designed  that  the  charge  of 
blasphemy  should  influence  the  Jewish  council,  and  that 


THE  PROMISED  SAVIOUR. 


195 


fcne  charge  of  sedition  should  render  certain  a sentence  of 
death  from  Pilate  the  Roman  governor.  Thus  was  Jesus 
the  object  of  reproach,  and  thus  he  endured  the  “ contra- 
diction of  sinners  against  himself.”  Heb.  xii.  3. 

5 The  manner  of  his  death.  It  was  predicted  that  the 
promised  Saviour  would  die,  but  not  an  ordinary  death, 
It  was  to  be  a death  by  violence,  for  he  was  to  be  “ cut 
off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living.”  He  was  to  die  in  the 
place  of  others,  giving  an  example  of  substitution  such 
as  had  never  been  given  before.  Of  all  this  the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah  contains  abundant  proof.  It  teaches 
also  that  the  wonderful  Sufferer  was  to  be  “ stricken, 
smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted,”  while  he  was  to  be  “ led 
as  a lamb  to  the  slaughter.”  The  death  of  the  cross  is 
no  doubt  alluded  to  in  the  words,  “They  pierced  my 
hands  and  my  feet.”  Ps.  xxii.  16.  It  is  scarcely  con- 
ceivable that  the  piercing  of  the  hands  and  feet  would 
have  been  required  by  any  other  form  of  death;  yet 
crucifixion  was  not  a Jewish  punishment.  The  remark- 
able Personage  referred  to  is  represented  as  saying,  “ I 
may  tell  all  my  bones:  they  look  and  stare  upon  me. 
They  part  my  garments  among  them,  and  cast  lots  upon 
my  vesture.”  These  words  are  found  in  the  same  psalm, 
as  also  the  exclamatory  question,  “My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me?”  This  appeal  to  God  indicates 
that  the  Sufferer’s  usual  state  had  been  one  of  intimacy 
and  fellowship  with  God,  and  that  the  suspension  of  thi» 
blessed  communion  was  regarded  as  the  greatest  of 
calamities.  To  be  forsaken  of  God  was  the  climax  of 
the  grief  the  promised  Saviour  was  to  be  called  to 
endure. 

We  may  now  direct  our  attention  to  the  death  of  Christ, 
. and  see  if  it  does  not  correspond  to  the  death  just  referred 
to,  and  so  strikingly  portrayed  in  the  Old  Testament. 


196 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


* 


Certainly,  the  death  of  Jesus  was  not  an  ordinary,  but  a 
violent,  death.  It  was  described  in  the  words  of  the 
apostles  to  the  Jewish  council:  “Whom  ye  slew  and 
hanged  on  a tree.”  Acts  v.  30.  He  died  as  a substitute, 
“ the  just  for  the  unjust  ” (1  Pet.  iii.  18),  “ giving  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many.”  Matt.  xx.  28.  His  hands  and  his  feet 
were  pierced,  and  his  garments  were  divided  by  lot.  Matt 
xxvii.  35. 

Such  a death  as  that  of  Jesus  on  Calvary  never  occurred 
before,  and  will  never  occur  again.  The  event  stands 
alone,  clothed  with  all  the  glory  of  majestic  isolation.  It 
may  be  said,  too,  that,  if  the  prophecies  concerning  the 
death  of  the  Messiah  were  not  accomplished  in  the  death 
of  Christ,  they  can  never  be  accomplished.  All  the  con- 
ditions requisite  to  their  fulfilment  existed  when  Jesus 
died,  never  existed  before,  have  not  existed  since,  and 
cannot  exist  in  the  future.  That  the  death  of  Christ  was 
infinitely  remarkable  appears  in  view  of  such  facts  as 
these — facts  which  I merely  present  without  dwelling  on 
them : It  was  instigated  by  Satan,  facilitated  by  a pro- 
fessed disciple,  demanded  by  Jewish  clamor,  sanctioned 
by  Roman  authority ; it  took  place  in  pursuance  of  the 
purpose  of  God,  was  inflicted  by  him  as  the  Lawgiver 
and  Executive  of  the  moral  universe,  and  it  was,  on  the 
part  of  Christ,  a voluntary  death.  The  victim  went  will- 
ingly to  the  altar  of  sacrifice.  What  strange  things  are 
these  ! Satan,  Judas,  Jews,  and  Romans  acted  most  free- 
ly, yet  God  through  them  executed  a decree  equally  irre 
sistible  and  eternal,  while  Jesus  died  of  his  own  accord, 
verifying  his  own  words : “ No  man  taketh  my  life  from 
me,  but  I lay  it  down  of  myself.  I have  power  to  lay 
it  down,  and  I have  power  to  take  it  again.”  John 
x.  18. 

In  view  of  the  preceding  considerations,  which  mighl 


THE  PROMISED  SAVIOUR. 


197 


be  expanded  into  a volume,  I claim  that  the  promised 
Saviour  is  Jesus  Christ.  He  was  promised  in  the  sure 
word  of  prophecy,  for  “ to  him  give  all  the  prophets  wit- 
ness, that  through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
shall  receive  remission  of  sins.”  Acts  x.  43.  It  may  be 
said,  too,  that  every  sacrificial  altar  of  patriarchal  and 
Jewish  times  was  a promise  of  the  coming  of  him  whose 
one  offering  of  himself  would  be  the  consummation  of 
the  whole  system  of  sacrifices.  The  blood  of  slain 
animals  typified  for  forty  centuries  the  blood  of  Cal- 
vary, the  blood  which  “cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.”  1 
John  i.  8. 
if 


/ 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

A reference  to  this  topic  properly  follows  the  preced- 
ing subject,  for  if  there  is  a promised  Saviour,  his  person 
claims  attention.  Who  is  he  ? is  a question  of  the  great- 
est importance.  Manifestly,  salvation  depends  on  what 
he  is,  as  well  as  on  what  he  does ; for  what  he  is  able  to 
do  depends  on  what  he  is. 

This  chapter  needs  not  to  be  a long  one,  as  I have  writ 
ten  at  some  length  on  the  Deity  of  Christ.1  There  will 
be  no  repetition  of  arguments  already  adduced  to  prove 
the  Lord  Jesus  divine.  Believing  those  arguments  valid, 
I regard  the  point  as  settled.  We  are  accustomed  to  say 
that  Christ  is  God,  and  that  Christ  is  man ; and  what  we 
mean  is  true ; but  neither  statement  is  perfectly  accurate. 
The  second  person  of  the  Godhead,  apart  from  his  as»- 
sumption  of  human  nature,  is  not  the  Christ ; nor  is  the 
Son  of  man,  apart  from  his  union  with  the  divine  nature, 
the  Christ.  The  only-begotten  Son  of  God  dwelt  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father  from  eternity,  but  he  was  not  the 
Christ,  till  by  his  incarnation  he  became  the  Son  of  man. 
A union  of  divinity  and  humanity  was  essential  to  the 
constitution  of  the  person  of  the  Christ.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  the  Christ  is  God-man.  Divinity  and 
humanity  are  united  in  him,  but  they  are  not  blended. 

1 See  Chapter  V. 


198 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


199 


Humanity  is  not  deified,  and  divinity  is  not  humanized. 
This  is  plainly  impossible.  Divinity  cannot  take  into  its 
essence  anything  finite,  and  the  human  is  finite.  Hu- 
manity cannot  be  so  absorbed  in  Deity  as  to  become  part 
of  it.  The  two  natures  must  ever  remain  distinct,  while 
the  person  of  Christ  formed  by  their  union  will  ever  be 
one  and  indivisible.  That  he  has  two  natures  in  one  per- 
son is  true,  and  must  ever  be  true,  of  the  Messiah.  The 
union  of  the  two  natures  is  confessedly  mysterious,  but 
the  doctrine  is  not,  on  this  account,  to  be  rejected.  Its 
rejection,  for  this  reason,  would  be  strangely  inconsistent 
in  men  who  cannot  understand  the  union  of  matter  and 
spirit  in  their  own  persons.  So  far  as  we  know,  there  are 
no  two  things  more  diverse  than  matter  and  spirit.  The 
point  of  contact  between  the  two  is  not  only  invisible,  but 
the  manner  of  contact  defies  comprehension.  The  fact 
howrever,  of  the  union  between  soul  and  body  in  the  per- 
son of  every  man,  is  unquestionable.  To  doubt  it  would 
awaken  a suspicion  of  lunacy.  While,  then,  we  can 
neither  deny  nor  comprehend  the  complexity  of  men’s 
persons,  we  must  accept  as  true  what  the  Scriptures  teach 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ.  Divine  and  human  ele- 
ments belong  to  it.  The  explanation  of  this  fact  is  given 
when  we  are  told  that  the  Word,  who  in  the  beginning  “ was 
with  God,”  and  who  “ was  God,”  “ was  made  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  ” men.  There  was  on  his  part  a voluntary  incarna- 
tion, for  the  incarnation  pertained  to  the  second  person  of 
the  Godhead,  and  not  to  the  first  or  the  third.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  strictly  proper  to  say,  without  qualification,  that 
the  divine  nature  became  incarnate,  for  this  would  imply 
the  incarnation  of  all  the  persons  of  the  Godhead.  It  is  bet- 
ter to  say  that  the  divine  nature  in  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity — or,  better  still,  that  the  second  person  himself — be- 
came incarnate.  The  act  of  incarnation  was  his,  and  the 


200 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


result  of  the  act  was  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh. 
I do  not  mean  by  this  language  that  the  incarnation  was 
not  approved  by  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit — far  from 
it — but  that  it  was  the  personal  act  of  the  only-begotten 
Son  of  God.  He  it  was  who  “ though  he  was  rich,  yet  for 
our  sakes  became  poor  ” (2  Cor.  viii.  9),  and  “ made  him- 
self of  no  reputation.”  Phil.  ii.  7. 

There  have  been  various  false  views  of  the  humanity  of 
Christ.  To  only  two  of  these  views  will  I refer : It  was 
supposed  by  some  at  an  early  day,  perhaps  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  apostolic  age,  that  Christ  was  not  in  reality  a 
man,  but  that  he  only  assumed  the  appearance  of  a man. 
Whether  this  opinion  grew  out  of  the  difficulty  of  believ- 
ing that  a Divine  Being  assumed  human  nature,  or  out  of 
an  unwillingness  to  believe  that  Jesus  really  suffered  and 
died,  it  is  useless  to  inquire.  It  seems  almost  certain  that 
John  intended  to  meet  and  refute  this  heresy  when  he 
wrote  as  follows : “ That  which  was  from  the  beginning, 
which  we  have  heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes, 
which  we  have  looked  upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled 
of  the  Word  of  life.”  1 John  i.  1.  There  seems  to  be  a 
striking  gradation  in  the  proofs  given  of  the  possession 
of  a human  body.  First,  we  have  hearing  ; then  seeing, 
as  more  convincing  than  hearing;  next,  looking  upon, 
intently  contemplating,  as  more  satisfactory  than  seeing ; 
and  lastly,  handling,  as  rendering  the  proof  complete. 
Jesus  was  really  a man.  He  called  himself  a man  when 
he  said  to  the  Jews,  “ But  now  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a man 
that  hath  told  you  the  truth  which  I have  heard  of  God.” 
John  viii.  40.  There  is  additional  proof  of  his  humanity 
in  these  words  : “ Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are  par- 
takers of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise  took  part 
of  the  same.”  Heb.  ii.  14.  We  could  not  be  taught  more 
clearly  than  in  this  verse  that  the  Son  of  God  assumed 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


201 


the  nature  of  those  he  came  to  redeem.  He  partook  of 
their  “ flesh  and  blood.” 

The  other  false  view,  which  also  deserves  most  decided 
condemnation,  is,  that  Christ  had  no  human  soul.  It  is 
supposed  by  the  advocates  of  this  theory  that  the  Word 
in  becoming  flesh  took  a human  body  only  into  union 
with  himself.  The  necessity  of  a human  soul  is  denied, 
and  is  thought  to  be  superseded  by  what  is  called  a 
“ divine  soul.”  Hence,  in  passages  in  which  the  soul  of 
Jesus  is  referred  to,  it  is  said  that  his  “ divine  soul  ” is 
meant.  It  would  perhaps  be  difficult  for  them  to  say  just 
what  they  mean  by  a “ divine  soul.”  Whether  they  make 
a distinction  between  this  “ divine  soul  ” and  Christ’s 
proper  divinity,  I will  not  undertake  to  say.  If  they  do, 
they  seem  to  attribute  to  the  person  of  Christ  an  element 
not  strictly  divine  or  human.  If  they  do  not,  it  is  need- 
less to  use  the  words  at  all,  for  the  term  “ divinity  ” or  the 
phrase  “ divine  nature  ” would  answer  every  purpose.  I 
imagine  that  some  obscurity  rests  on  the  views  of  those 
who  refer  to  Christ’s  “ divine  soul,”  and  they  would  per- 
haps find  it  impossible  to  dispel  the  obscurity.  It  is 
surely  not  our  business  to  attempt  it. 

To  prove  that  Jesus  had  a human  soul  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  prove  him  a man.  This  surely  is  not  difficult,  for 
he  was  pleased  to  call  himself  “Son  of  man.”  If  the 
phrase  “Son  of  God”  indicates  that  Jesus  was  divine,  the 
phrase  “ Son  of  man  ” indicates  that  he  was  human.  Isa- 
iah prophesied  of  him  as  “ a man  of  sorrows,”  and  God 
by  the  mouth  of  Zechariah  said,  “Awake,  0 sword, 
against  my  Shepherd,  and  against  the  man  that  is  my 
fellow,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.”  Zech.  xiii.  7.  I have 
shown  already,  by  refe:ence  to  John  viii.  40,  that  Jesus 
called  himself  a man.  Paul  says : “ The  first  man  is  of 
the  earth,  earthy:  the  second  man  is  the  Lord  from 


202 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


heaven  ” (1  Cor.  xv.  47) ; “ For  there  is  one  God,  and  one 
Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus.” 
1 Tim.  ii.  5.  Language  cannot  more  plainly  declare  that 
Christ  is  a man. 

But  the  advocates  of  the  theory  I am  opposing  will  ad 
mit  this.  They  say  without  hesitation  that  Christ  is  a 
man.  They  suppose  that  his  assumption  of  a human 
body  made  him  a man.  This  I deny,  and  to  present  the 
matter  in  a clear  light  it  is  proper  to  ascertain  w7hat  man 
is,  what  the  term  “man”  means.  We  cannot  do  better 
than  to  go  back  to  the  first  use  of  the  word : “ And  God 
said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness. 
. . . So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image 
of  God  created  he  him.”  Gen.  i.  26,  27.  This  language 
cannot  refer  to  a bodily  image,  for  God  is  a Spirit.  The 
reference  must  be  to  man’s  rational,  spiritual  nature. 
The  formation  of  man’s  body  is  described  as  follows: 
“And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground.”  Gen.  ii.  7.  In  view  of  these  passages  of  the 
divine  word  it  is  evident  that  spirit  and  matter  both 
enter  into  the  constitution  of  the  person  of  man.  The 
union  of  the  two  elements  is  so  essential,  that  without  it 
there  cannot  be  a man.  That  is,  a rational  spirit  or  soul 
is  not  of  itself  a man,  and  no  form  of  matter  is  of  itself 
a man.  In  proof  of  this  I need  only  say  that  when  a 
man  is  dying  we  call  him  a man  till  he  is  dead — not  after 
he  is  dead.  We  then  speak  of  the  disembodied  spirit,  but 
we  do  not  apply  to  it  the  term  “ man.”  We  talk  about  the 
corpse,  but  we  call  it  “ body,”  not  “ man.  ’ Why  these 
forms  of  expression?  They  grow  out  of  the  universal 
belief  that  the  union  of  soul  and  body  is  so  essential 
to  a man,  that  when  it  is  dissolved  the  term  “ man  ” can- 
not be  properly  applied  to  either  of  the  severed  parts. 

Now,  the  bearing  of  all  this  on  the  point  under  consid- 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


203 


eratbn  is  obvious.  For  if  Jesus  Christ  did  not  possess  a 
soul  as  well  as  a body,  he  was  not  a man.  The  union  of 
a body  with  his  divine  nature  would  not  make  him  a man. 
In  such  a union  the  more  important  element  of  humanity 
would  be  absent,  for  there  would  be  no  human  soul.  There 
must  be  the  union  of  a human  body  and  a human  soul  to 
constitute  Jesus  a man,  and  then  there  must  be  the  union 
of  his  humanity  with  his-  divinity  to  constitute  him  the 
Christ.  Nor  are  we  for  a moment  to  suppose  that  he  has 
two  personalities.  He  has  two  natures,  but  one  person. 

The  view  now  presented  supplies  the  only  basis  for  a 
rational  interpretation  of  certain  passages  of  Scripture. 
For  example,  it  is  said,  “ And  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom 
and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man.”  Luke  ii.  52. 
It  is  evident  that  increase  of  wisdom  referred  to  his  soul, 
while  increase  of  stature  had  reference  to  his  body.  The 
term  “ wisdom  ” cannot  be  applied  to  the  material  part 
of  man.  Shall  I ask  whether  the  divine  nature  in  Christ 
was  capable  of  degrees  in  wisdom?  He  who  answers  af- 
firmatively must  have  low  views  of  divinity,  but  those 
whose  theory  I deny  must  answer  affirmatively  or  not  at 
all.  They  are  shut  up  to  affirmation  or  silence,  and  if 
they  preserve  silence,  it  is  because  it  is  too  startling  to 
affirm. 

In  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  Jesus  said,  “My  soul  is 
exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto  death.”  Matt.  xxvi.  38. 
No  words  could  more  fully  express  the  fact  that  the  emo- 
tional nature  of  Jesus  was  excited  to  the  highest  degree 
of  intensity.  It  was  his  soul  that  was  sorrowful,  and  it 
vras  his  human  soul,  because  he  was  a man. 

That  the  soul  of  Christ,  like  the  souls  of  men,  was  ca- 
pable of  separation  from  his  body,  appears  from  these 
words : “ He  hath  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death.”  Isa. 
liii.  12.  Should  it  be  said  that  “soul”  here  means  life,  the 


204 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


import  of  the  passage  would  not  be  materially  changed. 
For  when  the  life  is  poured  forth  death  occurs,  because 
the  soul  leaves  the  body.  The  soul  of  Jesus  left  his  body 
at  death,  as  does  the  soul  of  every  man  in  the  dying  hour  ; 
and  therefore  the  only  reasonable  view  of  the  matter  is 
that  the  soul  of  Jesus  was  a human  soul. 

The  Deity  of  Christ  having  been  proved  in  another 
place,  his  humanity  is,  if  I mistake  not,  demonstrated  in 
this  chapter.  Jesus  is  both  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son 
of  Mary.  The  statement  of  this  fact  suggests  that,  by 
virtue  of  the  constitution  of  his  person,  he  possesses  all 
needful  mediatorial  qualifications. 

“ Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness and  to  many  it 
seems  a mystery  that  we  can  say  of  Christ’s  one  person 
what  is  true,  but  which  is  not  true  of  both  of  his  natures. 
His  one  person  is  more  frequently  referred  to  than  his  two 
natures.  Whatever  is  true  of  his  person  is  true  of  one  of 
his  natures.  If  this  were  not  so,  the  element  of  truth 
would  be  wanting  entirely.  To  illustrate  what  I mean : 
We  learn  from  the  Scriptures  that  Christ  hungered,  thirst- 
ed, slept,  and  wept.  This  is  true  of  his  person,  and  true 
of  his  human  nature.  He  hungered  as  a man,  thirsted 
as  a man,  slept  as  a man,  and  wept  as  a man.  But  these 
things  cannot  be  affirmed  of  his  divine  nature.  We  dare 
not  say  that  he  hungered,  thirsted,  slept,  and  wept  as 
God.  This  would  not  be  true.  On  the  other  hand,  it  in 
true  of  the  person  of  Christ  and  true  of  his  divine  nature 
that  he  withered  the  fruitless  fig  tree,  gave  sight  to  the 
blind,  hearing  to  the  deaf,  cast  out  demons,  and  raised 
Lazarus  from  the  dead.  These  things,  however,  if  af- 
firmed of  his  human  nature,  would  not  be  true.  Does 
any  one  question  the  accuracy  of  these  statements  ? To 
make  the  matter  plainer,  if  possible,  I may  say  that  the 
same  principle  is  illustrated  in  men  every  day  Should 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


205 


it  be  said  of  a man,  that  he  is  tall,  or  corpulent,  or  sick, 
every  one  would  know  that  the  body  was  meant.  The 
declaration  would  be  accepted  as  true  of  the  man  in  his 
physical  nature,  but  not  in  his  mental  nature.  Should  it 
be  said  of  a man,  that  he  is  wise  or  ignorant,  sad  or  joyful, 
the  truth  of  the  statement  would  be  granted  in  its  relation 
to  man’s  mental  constitution,  but  its  truth  would  be  de- 
nied in  its  application  to  the  body,  because  the  body  is 
not  wise,  ignorant,  sad,  or  joyful.  It  may  be  said  of 
every  man  that  he  is  mortal,  and  also  that  he  is  immor- 
tal. Two  expressions  cannot  be  more  contradictory  than 
these,  but  they  are  both  true.  How  ? Both  true  in  rela- 
tion to  man — the  one  in  relation  to  his  body,  the  other  in 
relation  to  his  soul. 

Thus  it  is  concerning  Christ.  All  that ’the  Scriptures 
say  of  him  is  true  as  to  his  person,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  is  true  of  both  his  natures.  Nor  should  we  anx- 
iously concern  ourselves  about  the  matter.  It  is  safe  for 
us  to  believe  that  what  the  Scriptures  say  of  Christ  as  to 
his  person  is  true,  even  though  we  may  be  utterly  unable 
in  many  things  to  discriminate  between  the  emotions  and 
% operations  of  his  divinity  and  his  humanity.  We  read, 
for  example,  as  follows : “ For  unto  us  a Child  is  born, 
unto  us  a Son  is  given : and  the  government  shall  be  upon 
his  shoulder:  and  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful, 
Counsellor,  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  the 
Prince  of  Peace.”  Isa.  ix.  6.  In  pondering  these  sublime 
words  we  know  that  the  being  described  is  the  God-man, 
the  Christ,  and  we  know  from  other  scriptures  that  Christ 
was  born,  that  he  died,  that  he  was  buried,  that  he  rose 
from  the  dead,  that  he  ascended  to  heaven,  and  that  he  is 
making  intercession  for  us  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  In- 
finite value  must  attach  to  all  the  acts  and  sufferings  of 
such  a being  in  the  room  of  guilty  men. 
is 


206 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


I close  this  chapter  by  quoting  the  following  from  a 
very  able  theologian  now  living,  and  who,  I trust,  will 
live  for  many  years  to  come:1 
“ Thus  have  we  seen,  in  the  review  of  the  Scripture 
teachings  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  suffering  Christ,  that 
in  the  possession  of  an  unchanged  and  proper  divine 
nature,  and  a complete  human  nature,  Christ  suffered  on 
our  behalf.  The  Sufferer  was  God  and  was  man.  Yet  it 
was  not  God  that  suffered,  but  he  that  is  God,  being  also 
man,  suffered  in  his  human  nature.  As  the  same  person, 
however,  was  united  with  both  natures,  and  as  that  person 
was  the  Son  of  God,  so  we  may  say  that  the  Son  of  God 
suffered.  This,  however,  is  the  suffering  of  a divine  per- 
son, not  of  the  divine  nature,  and  of  that  person,  other 
wise  incapable  of  suffering,  through  the  assumption  of 
human  nature.  If,  therefore,  called  upon  to  give  expres- 
sion  to  the  Scripture  statement  upon  this  whole  subject,  we 
may  express  it  thus : There  is  one  God  in  three  persons, 
distinct  in  personality,  but  undividedly  and  unchange- 
ably the  same  in  essence  and  nature.  We  may  speak  of 
a divine  person,  but  not  of  a divine  nature ; we  must  say 
the  divine  nature.  A divine  person  may  therefore  become 
incarnate,  and  yet  the  incarnation  be  not  of  the  whole 
Godhead,  for  the  persons  are  distinct;  but  the  divine 
nature  cannot,  because,  as  common  to  all,  its  incarnation 
would  be  that  of  the  whole  Godhead.  It  was  a person  of 
this  Godhead,  the  Son,  the  Word,  who  so  united  to  him 
self  human  nature  as  to  become  in  that  nature  a man 
In  this  union  he  assumed  all  that  constitutes  a man.  The 
fact  that  he  had  no  other  personality  than  such  as  had 
always  subsisted  in  the  divine  nature  does  not  make  him 
an  impersonal  man.  It  only  forbids  the  idea  of  an  addi« 

1 Rev.  Dr.  James  P.  Boyce,  who  so  worthily  fills  the  office  of  Presh 
dent  of  the  Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary,  Louisville,  Ky 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


207 


tional  personality  exclusively  in  the  human  nature. 
This  human  nature  was  assumed,  because  necessary  to 
the  work  of  salvation,  it  being  impossible  that  a being 
only  divine  could  undergo  the  experience  necessary  to 
redeem  man.  In  its  assumption  the  divine  nature  of 
Christ  was  wholly  unchanged,  and  the  human  nature 
still  remained  purely  human.  The  nature  of  personality, 
however,  allows  a most  vital  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
his  own  person.  Thus  uniting  in  himself  God  and  man, 
Christ  suffered.  There  was  here,  therefore,  no  participa- 
tion of  the  divine  nature  in  the  suffering.  Such  partici- 
pation would  involve  actual  suffering  of  that  nature. 
But  there  was  this  connection  of  God,  even  of  the  undi- 
vided divine  essence,  that  he  who  thus  suffered  subsists 
eternally  and  essentially  in  that  essence,  and  is  God 
Yet,  intimate  as  is  the  connection  of  the  two  natures,  they 
are  not  merged  in  each  other,  nor  does  either  of  them 
lose  its  separate  conscious  existence  or  the  possession 
of  those  peculiarities  which  make  the  one  divine  and  the 
other  human.  It  is  one  person,  truly  God  and  truly 
man — as  much  God  as  though  not  man",  as  much  man 
as  though  not  God.  The  human  can  add  nothing  to  the 
divine,  except  that  it  gives  to  the  person  that  is  divine 
the  means  of  suffering  for,  and  sympathizing  with,  us. 
The  divine  adds  to  the  human  only  that  it  gives  to  him 
that  is  thus  man  that  dignity  and  glory  and  power  which 
enables  him  to  perform  the  work  of  salvation,  and  to 
give  to  that  work  inestimable  value.”1 

1 Baptist  Quarterly , vol.  iv.  pp.  409-411. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST. 


A mediator,  as  the  word  is  commonly  used,  is  a person 
who  interposes  between  two  parties ; and  the  need  of 
interposition  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  parties  are  at 
variance.  In  view  of  what  has  been  said  in  preceding 
chapters,  it  is  without  doubt  true  that  God  and  man  are 
at  variance.  God  is  holy,  and  man  is  sinful.  There 
cannot  be  more  direct  antagonism  than  that  between 
holiness  and  sin. 

If  the  person  of  Christ  lias  been  properly  described — 
that  is,  if  he  is  the  God-man — he  is  perfectly  qualified  to 
assume  the  office  of  mediator.  The  reason  is,  that  he 
combines  in  his-  person  the  nature  of  God  and  the  nature 
of  man.  In  matters  of  mere  human  mediation  it  is  suf- 
ficient for  men  to  intercede  between  men.  In  every  such 
case  the  mediator  possesses  the  nature  of  each  party. 
When  God  and  man  are  the  parties  at  variance,  the  me- 
diator must  have  that  relation  to  both  which  is  exempli- 
fied only  in  the  person  of  Christ.  He  alone  possesses  the 
two-fold  constitution  in  which  divine  and  human  elements 
unite.  There  is  no  being  like  Christ;  and  while  we  can- 
not comprehend  his  mysterious  person,  we  can  see  the 
necessity  of  it.  It  was  requisite  that  he  should  possess 
the  nature  of  God,  in  order  that  the  rights  of  the  divine 
government  might  be  suitably  cared  for  and  vindicated. 
It  was  indispensable  for  him  to  have  the  nature  of  man 
208 


THE  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST.  209 

that  he  might  be  capable  of  human  sympathies,  human 
sufferings,  and  a human  death.  Paul  says,  that  “ there  is 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus  ” (1  Tim.  ii.  5) ; and  while  we  accept  the  statement 
as  true  in  its  literal  import,  it  is  also  true  in  the  sense 
that  this  one  Mediator  alone  possesses  necessary  media- 
torial qualifications.  He  only,  as  “ daysman,”  can  lay 
one  hand  on  the  throne  of  God  to  protect  its  majesty 
inviolate,  while  with  the  other  he  reaches  down  to  man  to 
raise  him  from  his  wretchedness  and  ruin.  There  is  no 
mediator  but  Christ.  By  a blessed  necessity  the  work 
of  mediation  is  confined  to  him  alone. 

The  personal  holiness  of  Christ  was  essential  to  his 
mediatorsliip.  We  are  therefore  told  that  “ such  an  high 
priest  became  us,  who  is  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  sepa- 
rate from  sinners.”  Heb.  vii.  26.  It  is  too  plain  to  require 
argument  that  a sinful  being  could  not  mediate  between 
a holy  God  and  sinful  men.  In  case  of  such  a thing 
there  would  be  a complicity  with  evil  that  would  vitiate 
all  attempts  at  mediation.  The  purity  of  Christ’s  cha- 
racter was  put  to  the  severest  test.  He  was  artfully  and 
violently  assailed  by  temptation.  Satan,  no  doubt,  ex- 
erted all  his  tempting  power,  and  Christ  was  “ in  all 
points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin.”  Heb.  iv. 
15.  He  retained  his  sinless  integrity  to  the  last,  saying 
to  his  enemies,  “Which  of  you  convicteth  me  of  sin?” 
John  viii.  46.  When  he  died  he  suffered,  “the  just  for 
the  unjust.”  1 Pet.  iii.  18.  His  personal  holiness  shone 
bright,  even  amid  the  darkness  that  gathered  around  his 
cross. 

There  is  another  qualification  of  a mediator  between 
God  and  men.  I cannot  do  better  than  to  call  it  the 
right  of  self-disposal.  Here  we  see  at  once  how  essential 
to  effective  mediation  is  the  divine  element  in  the  person 
18  * 


210 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


of  Christ.  In  the  absence  of  this  element  the  right  of 
self-disposal  cannot  exist.  What  creature  is  at  liberty  to 
dispose  of  himself?  His  supreme  obligation  is  to  God. 
All  that  he  can  do  is,  on  his  own  personal  account,  due 
to  God — a fact  which  makes  it  impossible  for  one  creature 
to  act  in  the  room  of  another.  But  there  was  substitution 
in  the  mediation  of  Christ.  He  came  into  the  world  to 
save  sinners ; and  to  save  them,  he  must  take  their  place  in 
law  and  die  in  their  stead.  It  is  therefore  said,  that  he 
was  “made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law.”  Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  The  language  implies  that 
he  was  originally  above  law.  He  was  never  under  it  till 
made  under  it;  and  how  was  it  possible  for  him  to  be 
made  under  it?  The  answer  is,  That  it  was  possible, 
because  he  had  the  right  of  self-disposal.  There  was  no 
coercion  in  the  matter.  To  compel  the  innocent  to  suffer 
for  the  guilty  would  violate  every  principle  of  propriety 
and  justice,  but  Jesus  suffered  voluntarily.  He  did  so  in 
the  exercise  of  his  right  of  self-disposal — a right  vital  to 
his  mediatorial  work. 

There  is  still  a mediatorial  qualification  to  be  considered. 
It  is  the  mediator’s  capability  of  death.  He  must  be  able, 
to  die,  and  must,  therefore,  have  a nature  capable  of  death. 
The  Son  of  God  before  his  incarnation  had  not  such  a na- 
ture. He  must,  for  this  reason,  assume  a nature  that  could 
die.  As  human  redemption  was  his  purpose,  he  assumed 
human  nature — the  nature  of  those  to  be  redeemed  by  his 
olood.  He  became  “ the  man  Christ  Jesus,”  but  we  must 
remember  that  never  as  a man  did  he  exist  apart  from 
the  divine  nature.  He  became  incarnate  in  order  to  die. 
Hence  we  read : “ And  for  this  cause  he  is  the  Mediator 
of  the  New  Testament,  that  by  means  of  death,  for  the 
redemption  of  the  transgressions  that  were  under  the  first 
testament,  they  which  are  called  might  receive  the  prom- 


THE  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST.  211 


ise  of  eternal  inheritance.  For  where  a testament  is,  there 
must  also  of  necessity  be  the  death  of  the  testator.  For  a 
testament  is  of  force  after  men  are  dead : otherwise  it  is 
of  no  strength  at  all  while  the  testator  liveth.”  Heb.  ix. 
15-17.  Here  we  learn  the  necessity  of  the  Mediator’s 
death,  and  the  fact  is  set  forth  prominently  that  it  was 
necessary  to  the  pardon  of  sins  committed  under  the  first 
covenant.  If  so,  it  is  necessary  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
in  all  ages.  Dr.  Ripley  well  remarks : “ The  death  of  Christ 
being,  by  anticipation,  efficacious  for  the  pardon  and  sal- 
vation of  men  during  the  Mosaic  age,  its  efficacy  extended 
back,  beyond  doubt,  to  the  very  commencement  of  human 
transgressions;  and  thus,  it  appears,  it  was  designed  to 
cover  the  whole  period  of  the  human  race.”1 
Unquestionably,  all  the  people  of  God,  from  the  days 
of  Abel  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  were  saved  by  virtue  of 
the  prospective  death  of  the  Mediator,  even  as  all  saved 
since  that  great  event  have  been  saved  by  the  blood  shed 
on  Calvary.  Through  all  the  centuries  of  the  world’s  his- 
tory there  has  been  but  one  Mediator  between  God  and 
men,  and  there  will  be  no  other  while  the  world  stands. 

% The  matter,  however,  claiming  special  attention  in  this 
connection  is  the  necessity  of  the  Mediator’s  death.  This 
necessity  made  it  imperative  that  the  Son  of  God  should 
assume  human  nature,  in  order  to  perform  the  work  of 
mediation.  In  other  words,  he  must  have  a nature  capa- 
ble of  death,  and  he  must  actually  -die.  Such  a nature 
the  second  person  in  the  Godhead  took  into  union  with 
his  divine  nature,  and  that  Christ  died  is  the  central  fact 
of  history.  In  view  of  the  foregoing  considerations,  it  is 
not  only  manifest  that  Christ  fills  the  mediatorial  office, 
but  that  he  is  the  only  being  in  the  universe  by  whom  it 
can  be  filled.  There  is  but  one  Jesus  Christ. 

1 Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews , pp.  112.  113. 


212 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


The  general  office  of  Mediator  includes  th*  three  subor= 
dinate  offices  of  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King.  There  are 
many  passages  of  Scripture  which  teach  that  Christ  per- 
forms the  functions  of  these  offices. 

1.  He  is  Prophet.  “ For  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fathers 
A prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of 
your  brethren,  like  unto  me;  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all 
things  whatsoever  he  shall  say  unto  you.”  Acts  iii.  22.  I 
may  say,  in  passing,  that  for  the  phrase  “ like  unto  me  ” 
Dr.  Noyes  in  his  translation  substitutes  the  words  “ as 
he  raised  up  me,”  which  clearly  convey  the  idea  of  the 
original  Greek.  The  point  now  in  hand,  however,  is  the 
fact  that  a prophet  was  to  be  raised  up  in  fulfilment  of 
the  prediction  of  Moses.  The  expectation  was  general 
among  the  Jews  that  such  a prophet  would  come.  When, 
therefore,  “ the  Jews  sent  priests  and  Levites  ” to  ask  John 
the  Baptist  who  he  was,  they  inquired,  “ Art  thou  Elias  ? 
And  he  saith,  I am  not.  Art  thou  that  prophet?  And 
he  answered,  No.”  John  i.  21.  They  evidently  meant  the 
prophet  of  whom  Moses  spoke,  and  for  whom  they  were 
looking.  When  Jesus  came  and  entered  on  his  ministry, 
he  was  recognized  as  the  great  prophet,  not  only  by  his 
disciples,  but  by  the  people.  It  is  therefore  said,  “ And 
when  he  was  come  into  Jerusalem,  all  the  city  was  moved, 
saying,  Who  is  this?  And  the  multitude  said,  This  is  Jesus 
the  prophet  of  Nazareth  of  Galilee.”  Matt.  xxi.  10,  11. 

It  is  a very  'common  opinion,  if  I mistake  not,  that  the 
chief,  if  not  the  exclusive,  function  of  a prophet  was  pre- 
diction— telling  beforehand  what  should  come  to  pass. 
That  the  ancient  prophets,  and  the  New  Testament 
prophets  also,  predicted  coming  events  is  true,  but  they 
did  much  more  than  this.  They  revealed  and  interpreted 
the  will  of  God  to  men,  for  he  spoke  to  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets.  If  we  were  to  trace  the  term  “ prophet  ” to  its 


THE  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST.  213 


origin,  we  should  probably  find  that  it  was  used  at  first 
to  denote  a messenger  speaking  in  front  of  a monarch  or 
king,  and  occupying  this  position  because  speaking  for 
the  monarch  or  king.  While,  therefore,  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  Greek  preposition  pro  is  in  front  of  we 
can  easily  see  that  its  secondary  meaning,  in  place  of 
that  is,  /or,  wras  inevitable. 

In  ancient  times  “ holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were 
n:ov3d  by  the  Holy  Ghost.”  2 Pet.  i.  21.  They  spoke  fcr 
God  because  God  spoke  through  them.  Jesus  the  great 
Teacher  is  in  the  highest  sense  the  prophet  of  God.  All 
other  prophets  were  subordinate  to  him,  and  indebted  to 
him  for  their  official  positions.  For  this  reason  it  is  said, 
“ No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time : the  only-begotten 
Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared 
him.”  John  i.  18.  We  may  therefore  say  that  to  Christ 
as  prophet  the  world  is  indebted  for  all  that  it  knows  of 
God.  As  words  are  used  to  express  ideas,  it  is  probable 
that  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  was  called  the  Word, 
because  through  him  divine  revelations  have  been  made 
to  men.  There  were  gradual  disclosures  of  the  will  of 
God  from  the  fall  of  Adam  to  the  end  of  the  book  of 
Revelation,  but  they  were  all  under  the  superintendence 
of  Jehovah-Jesus,  the  great  Prophet.  Indeed,  it  is  written 
in  the  last  chapter  of  the  Bible,  “I  Jesus  have  sent  mine 
angel  to  testify  unto  you  these  things  in  the  churches.”  Rev. 
xxii.  16.  During  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ  on  earth 
Moses  and  Elijah  rendered  to  him  their  devout  homage. 
They  appeared  with  him  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration. 
Out  of  all  the  Old  Testament  saints  there  were  no  two 
who  could  more  fitly  recognize  the  Prophet  of  hea\en. 
Their  recognition,  however,  was  feeble  as  compared  with 
the  higher  recognition  expressed  in  the  words  tha'  came 
from  the  excellent  glory : “ This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 


214 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


whom  I am  well  pleased ; hear  ye  him.”  Matt.  xvii.  5. 
Christ  as  Prophet  has  the  seal  of  the  Father’s  approval. 
He  is  the  object  of  the  Father’s  complacent  lcve,  and  in 
the  audience  of  the  world  the  Father  says,  “Hear  ye 
him.”  Well  may  we  hear  him,  for  “never  man  spake 
like  this  man.”  John  vii.  46.  No  man  ever  spake  like 
him  in  the  authoritative  manner  of  his  teaching;  in  the 
•adaptation  of  what  he  said  to  the  common  people ; in  his 
revelation  of  the  character  of  God ; in  his  delineation  of 
human  nature;  in  his  development  of  the  way  of  salva- 
tion ; in  the  light  he  poured  on  the  doctrine  of  the  soul’s 
immortality,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  bliss  of 
heaven,  and  the  miseries  of  hell.  Who  ever  spoke  like 
him  among  sages,  philosophers,  patriarchs,  or  prophets? 
He  stands  forth  in  the  majesty  of  approachless  superior- 
ity, extorting  from  his  enemies  the  reluctant  eulogy, 
“Never  man  spake  like  this  man.”  John  vii.  46. 

Truly  we  may  say  there  is  no  teacher,  no  prophet,  like 
Christ.  Happy,  thrice  happy,  are  those  who  reverently 
hearken  to  his  teachings!  They  not  only  find  rest  to 
their  souls  in  this  life,  but  will  in  the  life  to  come  be  ex- 
alted to  the  enjoyment  of  eternal  glory  in  heaven.  Awful 
will  be  the  doom  of  those  who  turn  away  from  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ.  He  who  hears  not  this  Prophet  shall  be 
destroyed.  So  Moses  wrote.  Alas!  who  can  tell  how 
much  is  implied  in  the  destruction  which  comes  on  those 
who  refuse  to  learn  the  lessons  of  salvation  as  taught  by 
Christ?  Good,  indeed,  were  it  for  them  had  they  nevei 
been  born ! 

2.  Christ  is  Priest . The  chief  functions  of  his  priestly 
office  are  atonement  and  intercession.  Nothing  is  said 
on  these  topics  here,  as  they  are  treated  elsewhere.1 

1 See  Chapters  X VI.  and  XVII.  The  intelligent  reader  will  know 
why  these  topics  have  a distinct  presentation. 


THE  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST.  215 

3.  Christ  is  King.  When  he  stood  before  Pilate  and 
made  what  Paul  terms  “ the  good  confession,”  he  said, 
“ My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world : if  my  kingdom  were 
of  this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight,  that  I should 
not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews : but  now  is  my  kingdom  not 
from  hence.  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a 
king  then?  Jesus  answered,  Thou  sayest  that  I am  a 
king.  To  this  end  was  I born,  and  for  this  cause  came 
J into  the  world,  that  I should  bear  witness  unto  the 
truth.  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice.” 
John  xviii.  36,  "37. 

In  reading  these  words  we  are  reminded  of  what  the 
Saviour  said  on  another  occasion  : u Judge  not  according 
to  the  appearance.”  John  vii.  24.  Judgment  based  on 
the  appearance  of  things  when  Jesus  was  arraigned  as 
an  evil-doer  would  have  been  fatal  to  his  kingly  claims. 
There  was  no  royal  banner  around  which  devoted  sub- 
jects were  rallying  and  shouting,  “ 0 King,  live  for  ever!” 
The  marks  of  royalty  were  conspicuously  absent.  The 
“ despised  Galilean  ” was  insulted  by  his  enemies  and 
forsaken  by  his  friends.  Where  was  his  kingdom?  In 
the  worldly  sense  of  the  term  there  was  none.  He,  how- 
ever, referred  to  a kingdom  not  of  this  world,  and  claimed 
it  as  his  own.  He  said,  “ My  kingdom.”  A kingdom  im- 
plies subjects,  and  the  loyal  subjects  of  Jesus  are  those 
wTho  are  “ of  the  truth.”  This  utterance  by  the  illustrious 
prisoner  at  Pilate’s  bar  wras  enough  to  relieve  the  suspi 
cious  Roman  emperor  Tiberius  of  all  apprehension.  The 
subjects  of  Caesar  were  not  required  to  be  “ of  the  truth.” 

Christ  is  King.  I refer  not  now  to  the  dominion  which 
he,  as  one  of  the  persons  of  the  Godhead,  exercised  before 
his  incarnation.  There  must  have  been  such  dominion 
for  as  he  made  all  things  he  must  have  ruled  all  things. 
I refer  to  Christ’s  mediatorial  kingdom.  As  the  God-man, 


2.6 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


all  authority  is  committed  to  him.  This  authority  he  is 
represented  as  receiving  from  the  Father.  For  this  rea- 
son it  is  said,  “ The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath 
given  all  things  into  his  hand.”  John  iii.  35.  The  Son 
W£3  appointed  to  his  mediatorial  kingship  by  the  Father, 
and  is  therefore  inferior  to  the  Father  in  office,  though 
equal  in  nature.  The  official  subordination  of  Christ  to 
the  Father  makes  plain  such  scriptures  as  the  following : 
“ Yet  have  I set  my  King  upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zion  ” 
(Ps.  ii.  6) ; “ Therefore  let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  as- 
suredly, that  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye 
have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ  ” (Acts  ii.  36) ; 
“Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and 
given  him  a name  which  is  above  every  name:  that 
at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the 
earth;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.”  Phil.  ii. 
9-11. 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  passages  that  Christ,  as  me- 
diatorial Lord  and  King,  has  been  exalted  to  universal 
dominion.  “ He  must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies 
under  his  feet.”  “ Then  cometh  the  end,”  and,  according 
to  the  teaching  of  Paul,  it  seems  that  Christ  is  to  deliv- 
er up  his  mediatorial  kingdom  to  God  the  Father,  from 
whom  he  received  it,  that  God,  in  his  threefold  unity, 
may  be  all  in  all.  See  1 Cor.  xv.  24-28.  I of  course  ad- 
mit that  there  is  some  obscurity  resting  on  this  passage, 
which  I am  incompetent  to  remove. 

The  phrases  “ kingdom  of  Christ,”  “ kingdom  of  heav- 
en,” and  “ kingdom  of  God  ” are  used  in  the  Scriptures 
with  some  diversity  of  meaning.  Many  of  the  parables 
of  Christ  were  designed  to  teach  and  illustrate  important 
truths  concerning  his  kingdom,  but  they  were  not  all  de- 


THE  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST.  217 


signed  to  teach  and  illustrate  the  same  truths.  Some- 
times one  peculiarity  of  the  kingdom  is  presented,  and 
sometimes  another.  One  parable,  it  may  be,  refers  to  the 
kingdom  as  embracing  Christ’s  rule  .over  the  righteous 
and  wicked ; and  in  another,  his  dominion  over  his  saints 
may  be  specially  referred  to.  A notable  instance  of  his 
dominion  over  the  good  and  the  bad  is  seen  in  the  par- 
able of  the  “ Tares  and  Wheat.”  In  his  explanation  of 
this  parable  Jesus  said,  aThe  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth 
his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all 
things  that  offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity.”  Matt. 

xiii.  41'  There  is  a sense,  then,  in  which  “things  that 
offend  ” and  persons  who  “ do  iniquity  ” are  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  but  they  are  to  be  gathered  out  by  angels 
on  the  last  day.  When,  however,  Paul  refers  to  deliver- 
ance from  the  power  of  darkness  and  translation  into  the 
kingdom  of  God’s  dear  Son  (Col.  i.  13),  it  is  plain  that  re- 
generate persons  are  meant.  They  alone  have  been  the 
subjects  of  such  a deliverance  and  such  a translation. 
When  James  mentions  the  heirs  of  the  kingdom  which 
God  “ hath  promised  to  them  who  love  him  ” (chap.  ii.  5), 
there  seems  to  be  special  reference  to  the  kingdom  of 
glory.  When  the  kingdom  of  God  is  said  to  be  “ right 
eousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ” (Rom 

xiv.  17),  the  blessed  effects  of  the  reign  of  God  in  the 
soul  are  signified. 

But  my  purpose  does  not  permit  me  to  enlarge  on  | 
matters  like  these.  I wish  to  make  prominent  the  fact 
that  Jesus  claims  the  right  to  exercise  kingly  authority 
over  his  churches.  Such  right  is  implied  in  the  first  use 
of  the  term  “church”  in  the  New  Testament:  “Upon  this 
rock  I will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it.”  Matt.  xvi.  18.1  It  will  be  observed 

It  does  not  accord  with  my  plan  to  enter  into  a critical  examination 
19 


i 


218 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


that  Christ  says,  “ my  church.”  It  was  to  be  his  property, 
belonging  to  him  in  a sense  that  justified  him  in  claiming 
it  as  his  own.  This  is  true  of  the  term  “ church  ” in  the 
two  prominent  acceptations  in  wThich  it  is  used  by  Christ 
and  the  apostles.  It  is  employed  to  denote  the  aggregate 
body  of  the  redeemed,  the  “ glorious  church  ” which 
Christ  is  to  present  to  himself,  “not  having  spot  or 
wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,”  as  we  are  taught  in  Eph.  v 
27.  In  almost  numberless  cases  in  the  New  Testament 
the  word  church  is  used  to  describe  a local  congregation 
of  Christ’s  baptized  disciples,  united  in  the  belief  of  what 
he  has  said,  and  covenanting  to  do  what  he  has  com- 
manded. In  the  former  sense  the  church  of  course 
belongs  to  Christ,  having  been  bought  with  his  blood. 
He  is  her  King,  and  she  cheerfully  and  gladly  yields  to 
his  authority,  rejoicing  to  own  him  as  Lord.  Through 
endless  ages  the  church,  “ the  sacramental  host  of  God’s 
elect,”  will  recognize  Christ  as  the  Author  of  redemption, 
and  be  animated  by  the  spirit  of  loyal  submission  and 
loving  obedience  to  him. 

As  to  local  assemblies,  so  often  called  churches  in  the 
New  Testament,  their  very  organization  ynplies  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  Christ’s  kingly  authority.  Their  right 
to  existence  depends  on  his  authority.  Those  who  can 
rightfully  enter  into  them  as  members  must  first  be  called 
out  of  the  world.  This  calling  out  from  the  world  must 
ever  precede  scriptural  church  membership;  and  they 
are  called  out  who  obey  Christ’s  command  and  experi- 
ence the  truth  of  his  promise,  “ Come  unto  me,  all  ye 
that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I will  give  you  rest.” 

of  passages.  I do  not,  therefore,  examine  this  controverted  verse.  My 
opinion  is  that  the  “Rock”  is  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  This 
was  the  great  truth  confessed  by  Peter,  which  the  Father  had  revealed 
to  him. 


THE  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST.  219 


Matt.  xi.  28.  This,  however,  is  net  all  that  ‘the  called 
out”  are  required  to  do.  Their  King  and  their  Lord 
says,  “ Take  my  yoke  upon  you.”  v.  29.  The  yoke  is  the 
symbol  of  subjection.  Christ  requires  unconditional  s ib- 
jection,  and  this  is  professed  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
which  formally  draws  the  line  of  demarcation  between 
the  churches  of  Christ  and  the  world  of  the  ungodly. 
This  ordinance,  of  open,  public  consecration,  he  himself 
appointed,  for  it  was  he  who  said  to  his  apostles,  “ Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  [disciple]  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I have  commanded  you : and,  lo,  I am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen.”  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  20. 

Baptism  is  administered  and  received  upon  the  author 
ity  of  Christ.  The  subjects  of  baptism  are  baptized  into 
Christ ; and  having  professed  their  faith  in  his  name, 
are  to  be  instructed  to  do  all  that  he  has  commanded. 
The  language  is  very  specific : “ Teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I have  commanded  you.”  The 
great  commission  was  to  be  executed  first  among  Jews, 
who  had  an  almost  idolatrous  reverence  for  what  Moses 
had  commanded;  but  Jesus,  the  King  of  1. is  churches, 
said,  “teaching  them  to  observe,”  not  what  Moses  com- 
manded, but  “ all  things  whatsoever  I have  commanded.5 
The  apostles  had  no  discretionary  authority,  but  were 
strictly  required  to  teach  the  baptized  disciples  of  Christ 
to  observe  all  his  commands. 

The  exclusive  authority  of  Christ  as  King  was  recog- 
nized in  the  formation  of  churches,  and  hence  Paul  uses 
the  phrase  “churches  of  Christ55  (Rom.  xvi.  16),  and  takes 
it  for  granted  that  “ the  church  is  subject  to  Christ.55  Eph. 
v.  24.  The  nature  of  a church,  its  membership,  its  offices, 


220 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


its  doctrines,  its  government,  its  discipline,  its  work  of 
evangelization,  all  were  determined  by  Christ.  Every 
church  should  regard  itself  as  an  executive  democracy 
solemnly  appointed  to  carry  into  effect  the  laws  of  Christ. 
He  is  the  Lawgiver.  The  legislation  in  his  kingdom 
is  all  his  own.  He  is  “ Head  over  all  things  to  the 
church.’’ 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 


As  already  stated,  the  two  chief  functions  of  the  priestly 
office  of  Christ  are  atonement  and  intercession.  The  for- 
mer of  these  topics  claims  attention  in  this  chapter,  and 
will  be  discussed  in  the  following  order: 

I.  The  Nature  of  the  Atonement. 

The  term  atonement  is  used  but  once  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  is  found  in  Rom.  v.  11 : “We  also  joy  in  God 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  we  have  now 
received  the  atonement.”  This  passage,  according  to  the 
present  meaning  of  the  word  “ atonement,”  does  not  cor- 
rectly express  the  sense  of  the  original.  We — that  is, 
believers— ttire  represented  as  receiving  the  atonemenh 
But,  strictly  speaking,  we  receive  only  the  benefits  of  the 
atonement,  while  the  Lawgiver  receives  or  accepts  the 
atonement  itself.  The  original  word  means  “ reconcilia- 
tion,” and  “ atonement  ” was  often  used  in  that  sense  at 
the  time  when  our  translation  was  made.  Shakespeare, 
who  died  five  years  after  the  common  version  of  the  Bible 
was  published,  uses  the  word  “ atonement  ” where  we 
should  now  employ  “ reconciliation,”  as  in  the  following 
lines : 

“ He  seeks  to  make  atonement 
Between  the  duke  of  Glo’ster  and  your  brothers.” 

19  • 221 


222 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


It  is  probable  that  the  translators  employed  the  word 
'in  the  same  sense  in  Rom.  v.  11.  At  the  same  time,  it 
should  be  noticed  that  they  also  used  it  in  the  sense  to 
which  it  is  now  confined,  to  express  the  idea  of  “ expia- 
tion,” as  in  the  subjoined  passages : “ And  Aaron  shall 
bring  the  bullock  of  the  sin-offering,  which  is  for  him- 
self, and  shall  make  an  atonement  for  himself  and  for 
his  house”  (Lev.  vi.  11);  “And  Moses  said  unto  Aaron, 
Take  a censer,  and  put  fire  therein  from  off  the  altar,  and 
put  on  incense,  and  go  quickly  unto  the  congregation,  and 
make  an  atonement  for  them : for  there  is  wrath  gone  out 
from  the  Lord  ; the  plague  is  begun.  And  Aaron  took  as 
Moses  commanded,  and  ran  into  the  midst  of  the  congre- 
gation; and,  behold,  the  plague  was  begun  among  the 
people : and  he  put  on  incense,  and  made  an  atonement 
for  the  people.  And  he  stood  between  the  dead  and  the 
living;  and  the  plague  was  stayed.”  Num.  xvi.  46-48. 

In  these  and  in  similar  forms  of  expression  the  idea 
seems  to  be  that  an  atonement,  an  expiatory  measure^ 
was  resorted  to  as  the  means  of  effecting  reconciliation. 
In  the  passage  last  quoted  we  are  lnfnxmed.  ,that  wrath 
had  gone  out  from  the  Lord.  This  wrath  was  excited  by 
the  sins  of  the  people,  and  before  God  could  be  consist- 
ently propitious,  an  atonement — in  that  case  a ceremo- 
nial one — must  be  made  to  justify  the  cessation  of  wrath 
and  the  exercise  of  mercy. 

Though  the  word  “ atonement  ” was  sometimes  used, 
perhaps  generally,  two  or  three  hundred  years  ago,  to  sig- 
nify reconciliatio'n,  this  meaning  has  been  obsolete  for  at 
least  a century,  and  it  now  denotes  expiation,  satisfaction, 
reparation  of  injury,  In  proof  of  this  I refer  to  the  fol- 
lowing among  standard  authors:  “ Junius,”  in  his  in- 
imitable Letters , says,  '‘The  ministry  not  atoning  for  their 
former  conduct  by  any  wise  or  popular  measure.”  Pope 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST 


223 


says,  “The  murderer  fell,  and  blood  atoned  for  blood.” 
Other  extracts  might  be  given  from  other  authors,  but  it 
is  needless.  It  is  evident  that  an  atonement  is  that  which 
repairs  an  injury,  gives  satisfaction,  makes  amends,  i With 
this  view  of  the  import  of  the  term  let  us  consider  the 
atonement  of  Christ.  What  is  it?  It  is  the  expiation  of 
sin  by  the  satisfaction  rendered  to  the  law  and  justice  of 
God  through  the  obedience  and  death  of  Christ.  I know 
of  no  better  definition  than  this. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  atonement  of  Christ, 
though  intended  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  the  divino  law,  is 
a measure  above  law.  I will  not  say  contrary  to  it,  but 
obviously  above  it.  The  law  of  God  contemplated  no 
atonement,  and  anticipated  no  reparation  of  its  dishon- 
or, apart  from  the  punishment  of  personal  transgressors. 
This  must  have  been  the  case;  for  if  the  law  had  held 
out  the  idea  that  something  would  be  substituted  for  the 
personal  punishment  of  the  guilty,  instead  of  deterring 
from  sin  it  would  probably  have  encouraged  its  commis- 
sion. The  hope  of  escaping  the  consequences  of  sin 
would  have  been  presented  to  every  one  tempted  to  trans- 
gress. Such  a hope  in  many  cases  would  have  been 
almost  a bribe  to  sin.  The  law  of  God,  being  “ holy,  and 
just,  and  good,”  could  neither  directly  nor  indirectly  coun- 
tenance the  commission  of  sin;  for  this  would  have  been 
equivalent  to  a defeat  of  the  object  of  its  own  enactment. 
In  view  of  these  and  kindred  considerations  it  is  mani- 
fest that  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  a measure  ?bove 
law. 

Man’s  ruin  was  brought  on  him  by  a violation  of  the 
divine  law,  and  his  recovery  from  that  ruin,  if  effected  at 
all,  must  take  place  in  a manner^ consistent  with  the  lawX 
God,  therefore,  u when  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  • 
Bent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a woman,  made  under  the  law, 


224 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


to  redeem  them  that  wer3  under  the  law.”  Gal.  iv.  4,  5, 
Christ  was  made  under  the  law  that  he  might  render  the 
obedience  and  suffer  the  death  already  referred  to.  Man 
in  sinning  had  treated  the  law  with  indignity  and  dis- 
honor. He  had  cast  contempt  on  it.  jfcr te  had  virtually 
and  practically  said  that  it  was  not  a good  law,  and  that 
lie  would  not  obey  it  nor  be  governed  by  it.  When  Jesus 
came  in  the  flesh,  then  did  he  truly  “ magnify  the  law  and 
make  it  honorable.”  Isa.  xlii.  21.  By  his  obedience  and 
death  he  removed  the  dishonor,  the  indignitjq  the  contempt, 
which  rested  on  the  law,  and  showed  to  the  universe  that  it 
is  a perfect  law.  He  clothed  it  with  a moral  grandeur 
more  sublime  than  it  had  before  its  violation.  He  exalted 
it  to  a dignity  as  glorious  as  a full  vindication  of  its  claims 
could  give  it.  He  honored  the  law  by  being  born  under 
it,  honored  it  more  by  obeying  it,  and  honored  it  in  the 
highest  degree  by  suffering  its  death-penalty. 

That  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  an  expiation  of  sin  is 
clear  from  the  following  scriptures : “fee  was  wounded  for 
our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities : the 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him ; and  with  his 
stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray ; 
we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way ; and  the  Lord 
hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all”  (Isa.  liii.  5,  6); 
“ Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world  ” (John  i.  29) ; “ Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to 
be  a propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare 
his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God ; to  declare,  I say,  at  this 
time  his  righteousness:  that  he  might  be  just  and  the 
justifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus  ” (Rom.  iii.  25, 
26) ; “ Once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared 
to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself”  (Heb.  ix. 
26);  “Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 


225 


on  the  tree  ” (1  Pet.  ii.  24) ; “ Herein  is  love,  not  that  we 
loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be 
the  propitiation  for  our  sins.”  1 John  iv.  10. 

These  are  a specimen  of  the  passages  of  Scripture  that 
teach  the  doctrine  of  atonement.  Christ  assumed  the  legal 
responsibilities  of  those  he  came  to  save.  Hence  his 
obedience  and  death  on  their  account.  “To  bear  his 
iniquity  ” is  a phrase  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Old 
Testament.  It  means,  to  suffer  the  consequences  of  his 
iniquity.  This  can  be  seen  by  a reference  to  Lev.  v.  1 : 
“ And  if  a soul  sin,  and  hear  the  voice  of  swearing,  and 
is  a witness,  whether  he  hath  seen  or  known  of  it ; if  he 
do  not  utter  it,  then  he  shall  bear  his  iniquity.”  The 
supposition  here  is,  that  the  witness  may  refuse  to  tell 
what  he  knows  about  the  matter  in  question.  His  con- 
cealment of  his  knowledge  would  defeat  the  purposes  of 
justice,  and  would  therefore  be  a sin.  It  is  called  iniq- 
uity, and  was  to  be  borne  in  the  sense  of  endurance  of 
the  penalty  attached,  in  such  cases,  by  the  Mosaic  statute. 
The  unfaithful  witness,  in  bearing  his  iniquity,  suffered  the 
consequences  of  his  iniquity.  This  was  an  instance  of  the 
bearing  of  iniquity  in  the  personal  punishment  of  the 
sinner. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  understand,  in  their  application 
to  Christ,  such  scriptures  as  the  following : “ He  shall  bear 
their  iniquities ;”  “ Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the 
sins  of  many;”  “who  his  own  self  bore  our  sins  in  his 
own  body  on  the  tree.”  Isa.  liii.  11;  Heb.  ix.  28;  1 Pet 
ii.  24.  They  mean  that  when  our  iniquities  were  laid  on 
Christ  he  suffered  the  consequences  of  our  iniquities.  He 
bore  our  sins  in  the  sense  of  bearing  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  which  law  we  had  violated.  He  was  not  personally 
guilty.  The  epithet  guilty , in  its  present  acceptation,  can 
with  no  propriety  be  applied  to  Christ.  Some  centuries 


226 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


ago  the  term  guilt  was  used  to  denote  “ liability  to  pun- 
ishment,’* but  this  is  not  now  its  meaning.  In  our  cur- 
rent literature  it  suggests  the  idea  of  personal  criminal- 
ity, and  consequent  desert  of  punishment.  This  is  the 
understanding  of  everybody  when  the  jury  brings  in  the 
verdict  of  guilty.  How,  then,  can  it  be  affirmed  that  Christ 
was  guilty  ? It  is  impossible,  for  when  he  died  there  was 
no  personal  criminality,  but  personal  innocence  in  its 
most  attractive  form. 

But  while  Christ  was  not  guilty — that  is,  was  not  per- 
sonally blameworthy — there  was  exemplified  in  him  what 
Dr.  J.  Pye  Smith  and  others  have  termed  “ legal  answer- 
ableness.’1 In  assuming  the  place  of  sinners,  Christ  of 
necessity  incurred  their  legal  responsibilities.  This  was 
indispensable  to  atonement.  Without  it,  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  might  have  been  calamitous,  but  in  no  sense 
expiatory.  They  could  not  have  satisfied  the  claims  of 
the  law,  for  there  would  have  been  in  them  no  element 
of  satisfaction.  The  idea  of  “ legal  answerablenes#  ” 
makes  the  matter  plain.  Christ  having  voluntarily  taken 
the  place  of  sinners,  there  was  a sacred  propriety  in  his 
being  held  answerable  for  them.  It  was  proper,  right, 
just  for  him  to  suffer,  because  he  was  legally  responsible 
for  those  in  whose  behalf  he  suffered.  “ Ought  not  Christ 
to  have  suffered  these  things  ?”  Luke  xxiv.  26.  This 
question  he  himself  asked  the  two  disciples  on  their 
way  to  Emmaus  after  his  resurrection ; and  it  indicates 
the  fitness,  the  propriety,  as  well  as  the  necessity,  of  his 
sufferings.  The  Jews  thought  salvation  through  a suf- 
fering Christ  unworthy  of  God,  but  the  Scriptures  say, 
“ It  became  him  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by  whom 
are  all  things,  in  bringing  many  sons  to  glory,  to  make 
the  Captain  of  their  salvation  perfect  through  suffer- 
ings.” Heb.  ii.  10.  It  was  worthy  of  God  to  do  this. 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 


227 


Instead  of  detracting  from  his  glory,  it  exhibits  his 
character  in  new  aspects  of  loveliness,  and  will  caP 
forth  the  sweetest  hallelujahs  of  heaven. 

Jesus  was  “ made  perfect  through  sufferings.”  There  is 
no  reference  to  moral,  but  to  official  or  mediatorial,  per- 
fection. That  is  to  say,  his  sufferings,  which  resulted  in 
death  and  accomplished  the  work  of  atonement,  perfectly 
qualified  him  to  act  as  the  Saviour  of  sinners.  It  is 
therefore  said,  “ And  being  made  perfect,  he  became  the 
author  of  eternal  salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey  him.” 
Heb.  v.  9.  His  becoming  the  Author  of  salvation  was  the 
consequence  of  his  being  made  perfect ; and  as  there  could 
be  no  salvation  without  expiatory  sufferings,  he  was  made 
perfect  through  sufferings. 

The  doctrine  of  atonement  involves  the  kindred  doc- 
trine of  substitution.  We  are  therefore  told  that  Christ 
“died  for  us”  (1  Thess.  v.  10),  “gave  himself  for  us” 
(Tit.  ii.  14),  “gave  himself  a ransom  for  all.”  1 Tim.  li. 
6.  It  is  true  that  these  forms  of  expression  teach  that 
Jesus  died  for  our  benefit,  but  they  teach  much  more. 
The  Spcinian  of  England  and  the  Unitarian  of  America 
say,<EEair  Jesus  died  for  our  benefit  as  “ a martyr  to  the 
truth,”  but  they  carefully  exclude  from  his  death  the 
idea  of  expiation.  Paul  died  as  “ a martyr  to  the  truth,” 
and  in  this  respect  died  for  our  benefit,  but  there  is  an 
exclusive  sense  in  which  Jesus  died  for  us.  He  died  as 
our  substitute.  He  placed  himself  in  our  legal  relation 
to  the  divine  government,  and  incurred  all  the  responsi- 
bilities of  such  a position.  This  Paul  could  not  do— 
this  an  angel  could  not  do — this  no  creature  could  do. 
Christ  died  for  our  benefit,  because  he  died  in  our  stead. 
We  are  benefited  by  his  death,  because  it  was  substituted 
for  our  death.  There  could  be  no  saving  benefit  without 
this  substitution  ; and  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  words 


X 


228 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


“ for  our  benefit  ” delude  many  to  their  eternal  ruin 
They  vainly  suppose  that  they  will  be  benefited  by  the 
death  of  Christ,  whereas  they  divest  it  of  the  very  pecu- 
liarity which  enables  it  to  confer  benefit.  The  Redeemer’s 
death  possesses  saving  power  for  men,  because  he  died 
for  men,  in  the  room  of  men;  but  it  possesses  no  such 
power  for  fallen  angels,  because  he  did  not  die  for  fallen 
angels.  It  cannot  be  insisted  on  too  earnestly  that  the 
only  reason  why  we  are  savingly  benefited  by  the  death 
of  Christ  is  that  he  died  in  our  place.  He  suffered  in 
our  stead  and  “ put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.’5 
Heb.  ix.  26.  His  obedience  and  death  sustained  the 
dignity  of  the  divine  throne,  vindicated  the  rectitude  of 
the  divine  administration,  honored  the  preceptive  and 
penal  claims  of  the  divine  law,  and  opened  a channel 
for  the  consistent  exercise  of  mercy  to  guilty  sinners. 
In  short,  the  atonement  of  Christ  exerts  so  important  an 
influence  on  the  throne  of  God,  as  to  make  its  occupant 
“just  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus.” 
Rom.  iii.  26.  What  words  the  atonement  puts  together 
— just  and  the  justifier!  Blessed  collocation  of  terms! 
Without  the  atonement  we  should,  have  heard  of  God  as 
just  and  the  condemner — with  it  we  hear  of  him  as  “just 
and  the  justifier.”  He  justifies  through  the  atonement 
the  very  persons  whom,  had  there  been  no  atonement, 
he  would  have  righteously  condemned  for  ever.  This 
*s  one  of  the  sublime  wonders  of  the  cross. 

II.  The  Necessity  of  the  Atonement. 

On  this  point  I am  not  to  be  understood  as  intimating 
that  God  was  under  obligation  to  provide  an  atonement, 
or  that  there  was  an  absolute  necessity  for  guilty  men  to 
be  saved.  There  was  a perfect  exemption  from  obliga- 
tion on  the  part  of  God,  as  is  seen  in  the  fact  that 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST 


229 


reigned  in  providing  the  atoning  sacrifice.  The  necessity 
of  salvation  was  not  absolute ; for  men,  like  fallen  angels, 
mightrhave  been  left  to  the  consequences  of  their  rebel- 
lion. -t-Had  they  been  so  left,  the  eternal  Throne  would 
have  remained  bright  with  the  awful  glory  of  its  recti- 
tude, and  no  suspicion  of  injustice  would  have  attached 
to  the  divine  administration.  1/ 

By  the  necessity  of  atonement  is  meant  this:  That  it 
was  indispensable  to  a consistent  exercise  of  mercy  to- 
ward condemned  sinners,  and  therefore  without  it  there 
could  have  been  no  salvation  for  them.  It  is  proper, 
however,  to  say  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  was  not 
necessary  to  excite  the  love  of  God  to  man,  for  it  is  the 
effect,  and  not  the  cause , of  God’s  love.  Jesus  therefore 
said  to  Nicodemus,  “God  so  loved  the  world  that  he 
gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.”  John 
iii.  16.  It  is  plain  from  this  superlative  summary  of  the 
gospel  that  the  love  of  God  was  the  originating  cause  of 
atonement.  There  was  antecedent  love  in  the  divine 
bosom — there  was  compassion  for  lost  men.  But  with- 
out an  atonement  that  love  could  not,  consistently  with 
law  and  justice,  express  itself  in  the  salvation  of  sinners ; 
that  compassion  could  have  no  development.  It  is  incor- 
rect, therefore,  to  say  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  ren- 
dered God  propitious  to  sinners,  and  stop  there;  but  it 
is  strictly  true  to  say  that  it  rendered  him  propitious  to 
sinners  according  to  law  and  justice.  It  follows,  then,  that 
the  necessity  of  atonement  originated  in  the  obstacles 
interposed  by  the  law  and  the  justice  of  God  to  the  salva- 
tion of  sinners.  The  law,  having  been  transgressed,  de- 
manded the  execution  of  its  penalty,  and  justice  con- 
curred in  the  demand.  The  law  being  k'  noly,  and  just, 
and  good,”  holiness,  and  justice,  and  goodness  all  com* 
20 


230 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


billed  and  required  the  infliction  of  its  curse.  Here,  then, 
we  see  that  the  law,  having  been  violated,  rose  up  in  its 
terrible  majesty,  restrained  the  exercise  of  divine  mercy 
in  man’s  salvation,  and  called  for  the  execution  of  its 
penalty.  At  this  point  the  necessity  of  an  atonement 
clearly  appears.  In  order  to  the  salvation  of  sinners  an 
expiatory  measure  must  be  introduced  into  the  divine 
government  to  meet  the  claims  of  the  law,  by  preserving 
its  honor,  and  vindicating  its  penal  sanctions.  Justice 
required  the  introduction  of  such  a measure  or  the 
execution  of  the  penalty  of  the  law  on  personal  trans- 
gressors. The  atonement  of  Christ  was  the  measure 
introduced.  It  rendered  satisfaction  to  the  law  and  the 
justice  of  God,  and  removed  the  restraints  which  they 
had  placed  on  the  exercise  of  mercy.  It  harmonized 
the  divine  perfections  in  the  salvation  of  sinners.  This  is 
the  glory  of  redemption  through  the  blood  of  the  cross. 

There  is  a cordial  co-operation  of  the  divine  attri- 
butes in  the  salvation  of  the  guilty. ; Mercy  triumphs  in 
all  its  glory;  justice  shines  forth  in  all  its  majesty ; holi- 
ness appears  in  all  its  beauty  ; while  wisdom,  in  devising 
the  wondrous  plan,  exhibits  itself  to  infinite  advantage. 
In  treating  of  the  necessity  of  Christ’s  atonement  it  is 
generally  deemed  sufficient  to  refer  to  it  as  satisfying 
the  law  and  the  justice  of  God.  When  this  is  done  the 
interests  of  truth  are  not  likely  to  suffer.  Sometimes, 
however,  it  is  well  to  go  more  thoroughly  into  the  matter 
of  necessity,  and  trace  it  to  the  ill-desert  of  sin , and  thence 
to  the  nature  of  God.  The  logical  and  the  theological  exig« 
ences  of  the  case  require  this,  ^or  it  may  be  asked  why 
the  law  of  God,  when  violated,  needs  satisfaction.  This 
is  a legitimate  question,  and  Ands  its  only  answer  in 
the  nature  of  sin  and  the  nature  of  God. 

There  is  intrinsic  demerit  in  sin,  which  rer  lers  it  de* 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 


231 


serving  of  punishment.  It  is  better  to  present  the  matter 
concretely  than  abstractly.  I say, /(Chen,  that  a sinner,  be- 
cause he  is  a sinner,  deserves  punishment.  He  is  a :t3bel 
against  the  government  of  God,  and  justice  requires  that 
he  shall  pay  the  penalty  of  rebellion.  He  is  guilty  of  high 
treason  against  the  Majesty  of  heaven,  and  every  prin- 
ciple of  righteousness  demands  that  he  shall  suffer  the 
consequences  of  his  capital  crimo^) 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  philosophy  of  punishment 
is  by  many  imperfectly  understood,  and  is  not  therefore 
presente  I in  its  most  important  aspect.  They  regard 
punishment  as  exemplary ; that  is,  they  suppose  that 
criminals  are  punished  to  deter  others  from  committing 
crimes.  This  is  only  the  secondary  reason  for  punish- 
ment; the  primary  reason  is  that  the  punishment  is  de- 
served. It  may  be  classed  almost  among  the  intuitive 
beliefs  of  the  human  mind  that  criminals  ought  to  be 
punished  because  they  personally  deserve  to  be  punished. 
The  benefit  which  society  receives  from  their  punishment 
is  incidental  and  collateral ; and  this  benefit  would  be 
precluded  if  personal  ill-desert  was  not  regarded  as  the 
true  ground  of  punishment.  For  how  could  suffering  in- 
flicted on  the  innocent — that  is,  inflicted  without  regard 
to  personal  criminality — promote  the  welfare  of  society  ? 
How  could  its  influence  be  suppressive  of  vice  and  con- 
ducive to  virtue?  Would  not  the  question  arise  in  the 
mind  of  many  a citizen,  “ Why  should  I specially  concern 
myself  about  obeying  the  laws  when  the  innocent  are 
made  to  suffer  as  well  as  the  guilty?1''  Thus  does  it  ap- 
pear that  a government,  by  disregarding  the  primary  ob- 
ject of  punishment  and  keeping  in  view  the  secondary 
object  alone,  would  more  effectually  defeat  the  secondary 
than  if  the  primary  object  was  regarded.  These  consider- 
ations are  deemed  sufficient  to  show  that  the  design  in  the 


232 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


execution  of  the  penalty  of  law  is  to  punish  the  trans- 
gressor according  to  the  demerit  of  his  offence,  and  not 
merely  to  present  him  as  an  example  to  deter  others  from 
crime.  But,  to  make  the  position  I maintain  still  stronger, 
T need  only  ask,  What  would  have  been  the  state  of  things 
if  it  had  been  the  pleasure  of  God  to  bring  into  existence 
but  one  rational  creature?  Suppose  this  one  creature  to 
rebel  against  him.  Would  not  justice  call  for  the  penally 
of  rebellion,  although,  on  the  supposition,  there  would  be 
no  other  creature  to  be  affected  by  the  execution  of  the 
penalty?  In  other  words,  Would  not  the  personal  guilt 
of  such  L creature  render  it  proper  for  him  to  bear  the 
curse  of  the  law,  though  in  a state  of  perfect  isolation? 
How  could  the  non-existence  of  other  creatures  affect  his 
ill-desert?  To  say  that  it  could  is,  in  effect,  to  say  that 
the  relations  of  creatures  to  creatures  are  more  important 
than  the  relation  of  a creature  to  God.  This  is  of  course 
an  absurdity,  because  the  creature’s  relation  to  God  is  the 
first  and  supreme  relation,  from  which  all  subordinate 
relations  spring. 

If  any  inquire  what  this  reference  to  the  philosophy  of 
punishment  has  to  do  with  the  necessity  of  atonement,  the 
answer  is,  To  trace  its  necessity  to  the  demerit  of  sin.  Sin 
against  God  is  a great  evil,  and  deserves  punishment. 
This  punishment  is  due  to  the  transgressor  on  account 
of  his  personal  demerit,  and  the  law  of  God  calls  for  its 
infliction.  This  demand  made  by  the  law  implies  the  in- 
trinsic evil  and  ill-desert  of  sin.  There  could  be  no  such 
demand  were  it  not  for  the  sinner’s  personal  blame- 
worthiness. Hence  it  follows  that  there  is  something  in 
the  nature  of  sin  which  requires  the  execution  of  the 
penalty  of  God’s  violated  law.  This  penalty  must  fall 
either  on  the  transgressor  himself  or  on  his  substitute. 
It  must  fall  somewhere . The  ill-desert  of  sin  makes  this 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST  233 

inevitable.  If  the  sinner  is  punished  in  person,  bctli  the 
spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  law  are  carried  into  effect;  if 
his  iniquity  is  laid  upon  a voluntary  substitute,  though 
the  letter  of  the  law  is  dispensed  with,  its  spirit  is  fully 
preserved,  jflf  the  transgressor  bears  his  own  iniquity, 
there  is  of  course  no  pardon;  if  the  substitute  bears  it, 
the  transgressor  may  be  pardoned  and  go  free.  The  iniq- 
uity must  be  borne.  The  necessity  of  atonement,  there- 
fore, arises  from  the  fact  that  while  the  pardon  of  sin  is 
indispensable  to  salvation,  sin_JsLSo  great  an  evil,  and 
so  justly  deserving  of  punishment,  as  to  be  for  ever  un- 
pardonable without  an  expiatory  sacrifice. 

But  the  necessity  of  atonement  is  traceable  from  the 
nature  of  sin  to  the  nature  of  God.  It  can  be  traced  no 
further.  All  reasoning  on  the  subject  is  destined  to  cul- 
minate at  this  point,  and  here  to  exhibit  its  supreme 
strength.  For  if  we  ask  why  the  law  of  God  is  what  it 
is,  the  answer  is,  Because  the  nature  of  God  is  what  it  is. 
If  we  ask  why  sin  is  such  an  evil  as  to  deserve  punish- 
ment, the  answer  is,  Because  it  is  antagonistic  to  the 
nature  of  God.  Here,  therefore — in  the  divine  nature — 
is  the  field  on  which  is  to  be  decided  the  contest  for  or 
against  the  necessity  of  atonement.  All  theories  which 
teach  that  the  aspects  of  Christ’s  atonement  are  manward 
and  not  Godward  virtually  deny  the  justice  and  holiness 
of  God.  The  correct  view  is  that  the  atonement  has  refer- 
ence both  to  God  and  man.  Its  saving  -influences  reach 
man,  because  its  propitiatory  merit  first  reaches  the  throne 
of  God.  It  is  idle,  therefore,  to  talk  of  what  the  atonement 
can  do  for  man,  unless  it  does  something  for  the  govern- 
ment of  God.  This  is  so  obvious,  that  those  who  say  that 
the  death  of  Christ  does  not  affect  the  divine  administra- 
tion toward  men,  but  only  affects  men  toward  the  divine 
administration,  usually  deny  that  his  death  was,  in  any 
20  * 


234 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


proper  sense  of  the  words,  a vicarious  sacrifice.  Not  be- 
lieving that  the  God  of  justice  needed  to  be  propitiated 
so  as  to  turn  away  his  holy  wrath  from  the  guilty,  they 
cannot  believe  that  Jesus  died  as  an  atoning  substitute 
for  sinners.  If  they  use  at  all  such  words  as  propitiation, 
expiation,  substitution,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  many  of 
them  do  so  to  “ deceive  the  simple.”  To  say  that  no  in- 
fluences emanate  from  the  cross  Godward  is  equivalent  to 
a denial  of  all  expiatory  value  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 
They  may  possess  other  and  inferior  values,  but  if  their 
atoning  quality  is  abstracted,  to  what  saving  purpose  can 
those  values  be  applied  ? But  this  may  be  called  phil- 
osophizing ; and  it  may  be  asked,  What  do  the  Scriptures 
teach  ? To  the  Scriptures,  then,  we  go. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  there  is  something  in  the  nature 
of  God  to  which  sin  is  so  offensive,  so  infinitely  hateful, 
as  to  excite  his  holy  wrath.  It  may  be  said,  too,  that  sin 
is  the  only  thing  in  the  universe  that  has  ever  excited  the 
wrath  of  God.  That  moral  quality  of  the  divine  nature 
which  causes  hatred  of  sin  excites  wrath  against  sin,  and 
therefore  makes  necessary  an  atonement,  in  order  that  sin 
may  be  pardoned.  If  sin  originates  wrath  in  God,  it  is 
morally  certain  that  that  wrath  can  never  be  turned  away, 
unless  some  provision  is  made  for  the  forgiveness  of  the 
sin  that  originates  it.  What  do  the  Scriptures  say  in  re- 
gard to  the  wrath  of  God  ? — “ He  that  believeth  on  the 
Son  hath  everlasting  life;  and  he  that  believeth  not  the 
Son  shall  not  see  life;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on 
him  ” (John  iii.  36) ; “ The  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from 
heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of 
men  ” (Rom.  i.  18)  ; “ The  wrath  of  God  cometh  on  the 
children  of  disobedience  ” (Eph.  v.  6)  ; “ Which  deliver- 
ed us  from  the  wrath  to  come.”  1 Thess.  i.  10.  Here  are 
several  passages  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  wrath,  nor 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST 


235 


can  it  be  doubted  what  wrath  is  meant.  It  is  expressly 
termed  “ the  wrath  of  God.”  We  are  not  to  suppose  that 
wrath  in  God  is  something  like  excited  passion  in  man. 
Tt  is  not.  God’s  wrath  is  his  holy  and  just  indignation 
against  sin.  We  are  not  left  to  conjecture  whether  this 
wrath  exists,  for  it  is  revealed  from  heaven.  It  comes  on 
the  children  of  disobedience,  abides  on  unbelievers,  and 
believers  are  saved  from  it  through  Jesus  Christ.  Wrath 
against  sin  and  love  for  sinners  are  perfectly  consistent. 
The  feelings  of  every  good  man  may  be  appealed  to  in 
proof  of  this  fact,  but  the  fact  itself  receives  its  highest 
exemplification  in  God.  He  so  loved  sinners  and  so  hated 
their  sins  as  to  send  his  Son  from  heaven  “ to  put  away 
sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself”  (Heb.  ix.  26),  that  he  might 
gratify  the  impulses  of  his  love  in  saving  sinners.  In  the 
cross,  God  showTs  himself  to  the  universe  as  the  sinner’s 
friend  and  the  uncompromising  and  eternal  enemy  of 
sin. 

Some  think  that  it  detracts  from  the  perfection  of  his 
character  to  speak  of  the  wrath  of  God.  Their  view  of 
wrath  is  that  it  is  a vindictive,  resentful  passion.  Such  a 
passion  is,  they  think — and  properly,  too — unworthy  of 
God.  But  there  is  a vast  difference  between  vindictive 
and  vindicative ; and  while  the  wrath  of  God  is  not  vin- 
dictive, it  is  vindicative  of  his  justice,  his-  law,  his  gov* 
ernment.  This  is  seen  in  the  agony  of  Gethsemane  and 
in  the  tragedy  of  Calvary. 

To  understand  many  passages  of  Scripture  we  must 
consider  God  the  Father  as  Lawgiver  and  as  the  guardian 
of  the  rights  of  the  divine  government.  He  presided  over 
the  awful  transaction  of  Calvary.  Whatever  Jesus  suf- 
fered, the  Father  required  him  to  suffer  as  the  voluntary 
Substitute  for  sinners  Hence  the  Saviour,  when  his 
death  was  at  hand,  said,  “The  cup  which  my  Father 


236 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


hath  given  me,  shall  I i.jt  drink  it?”  John  xviii.  11.  It 
was  an  inconceivably  bitter  cup,  but  the  Father  gave  it. 
As  the  preserver  of  the  authority  of  his  law  and  the  pro- 
tector of  the  interests  of  his  moral  empire,  he  was  obliged 
to  give  that  cup.  Jesus,  with  the  legal  responsibilities  of 
sinners  resting  upon  him,  was  obliged  to  drink  it.  This 
was  determined  in  Godhead  council  before  the  worlds 
were  made.  We  therefore  read  on  the  prophetic  page, 
“It  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him;  he  hath  put  him  to 
grief”  (Isa.  liii.  10) ; “Awake,  0 sword,  against  my  Shep- 
herd, and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts : smite  the  shepherd  and  the  sheep  shall  be 
scattered.”  Zech.  xiii.  7.  How  much  was  implied  in  the 
bruising  and  smiting  no  finite  mind  will  ever  know.  They 
were  inflicted  by  the  omnipotent  Hand.  They  were  worthy 
of  a God  terrible  in  his  majesty  and  inflexible  in  his  pur- 
pose to  vindicate  the  rectitude  of  his  throne.  We  are  not 
to  suppose  that  the  Father  in  smiting  the  Son  inflicted 
sufferings  merely  physical.  The  bodily  sufferings  of- 
Christ  seem  to  have  made  on  him  scarcely  any  impres- 
sion. When  the  crown  of  thorns  was  put  on  his  head; 
when  he  was  buffeted,  scourged,  nailed  to  the  cross,  there 
was  not  a word  of  complaint  But  when  the  lowering 
cloud  of  Heaven’s  wrath  poured  out  its  awful  contents 
on  his  soul;  when  he  tasted  the  bitterness  of  that  wrath ; 
when  angels  looked  on  aghast  and  impotent  to  help ; 
when  communion  with  heaven  was  suspended;  when 
the  Father,  as  the  Executive  of  the  divine  government, 
abandoned  him  to  the  responsibilities  he  had  assumed, 
leaving  him  alone  to  feel  all  the  anguish  of  excruciating 
Bolitude,  all  the  horrors  of  unmitigated  desolation, — then 
did  his  agony  reach  its  climax  and  extort  the  exclama- 
tory question,  “ My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me?”  Matt,  xxvii.  46.  He  was  forsaken  by  his  Father. 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 


237 


Because  lie  was  in  the  place  of  sinners,  their  iniquities 
were  laid  upon  him  and  sin  was  condemned  in  the  flesh 
— that  is,  in  the  nature  that  had  sinned.  The  Father 
must  show  his  displeasure  against  sin  and  his  judgment 
of  its  ill-desert,  even  when  charged  to  his  beloved  Son, 
not  personally,  but  by  imputation.  It  really  seems  that 
hatred  of  sin  is,  if  possible,  a stronger  feeling  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father  than  love  for  his  Son.  What 
mighty  emotions  stirred  that  bosom  when  Calvary  was 
bathed  in  blood  ! According  to  human  conception  there 
must  have  been  a sublime  antagonism  between  those 
emotions.  Never  did  the  Father  love  the  Son  more  in- 
tensely than  then.  Never  was  he  more  inflexibly  at- 
tached to  the  principles  of  justice  embodied  in  his  law. 
Never  was  his  abhorrence  of  sin  more  implacable,  and 
never  so  fully  shown.  The  divine  displeasure  against  sin 
indicates  the  divine  estimate  of  sin,  and  this  estimate 
growTs  out  of  the  divine  nature  and  is  inseparable  from 
it.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  supreme  argument  in 
proof  of  the  necessity  of  atonement  is  supplied  by  that 
moral  quality  in  the  nature  of  God  to  which  sin  in  its 
intrinsic  demerit  is  so  odious  as  to  be  pardonable  only 
through  an  atoning  sacrifice  of  infinite  worth. 

What  wonders  are  involved  in  the  preceptive  obedience 
and  penal  sufferings  of  Jesus  the  Nazarene ! Had  there 
been  no  sin,  there  would  have  been  no  atonement.  Had 
there  been  no  atonement,  we  should  know  far  less  of  every 
divine  attribute  than  we  know  now,  and,  consequently, 
much  less  of  the  divine  character.  Thus  it  appears  that 
the  existence  of  sin,  the  abominable  thing  that  God  hates, 
has  been  so  overruled  as  to  give  the  universe  sublimer 
and  more  comprehensive  views  of  the  perfections  of  God. 
This  is  the  wonder  of  wonders. 


238 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


III.  The  Value  of  the  Atonement. 

On  this  point  I shall  not  write  at  length,  for  the  limits 
prescribed  to  this  chapter  require  that  the  remaining  por- 
tion of  it  be  abridged.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  elaborate  the 
arguments  which  prove  the  worth  of  Christ’s  atoning  sac- 
rifice. It  will  be  sufficient  to  present  briefly  a few  of  these 
arguments,  and  leave  them  to  make  their  proper  impres- 
sion. I refer  to  the  following: 

The  value  of  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice  is  seen  from  the 
following  considerations : 

1.  It  was  the  antitype  and  the  consummation  of  all  sacrifices. 
I assume  that  the  sacrificial  rite  was  divinely  appointed 
immediately  after  the  fall  of  man.  Abel,  we  are  told,  of- 
fered to  God  a more  excellent  sacrifice  than  Cain.  He 
laid  on  the  sacrificial  altar  one  of  the.  firstlings  of  his 
flock.  He  approached  God  by  means  of  blood.  Abra- 
ham offered  sacrifices,  and  Job  did  the  same  thing.  At 
Mount  Sinai  there  was  an  enlargement  of  the  sacrificial 
system.  Many  additions  were  appended  to  it,  and  provis- 
ion was  made  for  greater  regularity  and  solemnity  in  its 
offerings.  Now,  all  the  sacrifices  of  the  patriarchal  and 
the  Jewish  ages  prefigured  the  one  Sacrifice  of  the  cross. 
Every  altar  sent  its  blood  and  smoke  in  the  direction  of 
Calvary.  The  many  victims  pointed  to  one  victim.  The 
many  oblations  called  attention  to  the  one  oblation  to  be 
offered  in  “the  end  of  the  wrorld.”  Heb.  ix.  26.  The 
rivers  of  animal  blood  typified  Immanuel’s  blood.  There 
must  have  been  this  anticipatory  reference  to  the  atoning 
death  of  Christ,  for  otherwise  all  sacrificial  regulations 
would  have  been  unmeaning.  With  this  reference  there 
was  in  them  an  expressive  significance.  The  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  a sufficient  justification  of  this  view  of 
the  matter.  I argue,  then,  the  value  of  Christ’s  atone- 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 


239 


ment  because  for  four  thousand  years  God  in  his  wis- 
dora  caused  typical  atonements  to  be  made  by  animal 
sacrifices,  and  thus  directed  attention  to  the  death  of  his 
Son.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  preparation  so  elaborate, 
and  continued  for  forty  centuries,  was  made  for  an  unim- 
portant transaction,  and  therefore  the  atonement  of  Christ 
possesses  unspeakable  worth.  When  Jesus  died  the  type 
yielded  to  the  antitype  and  the  shadow  to  the  substance. 

It  follows  that  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  the  con- 
summation of  all  sacrifices. 

2.  The  appointment  of  God  furnishes  a further  proof  of 
the  value  of  Christ’s  atonement.  While  it  would  not  be 
true  to  affirm  that  its  value  arises  chiefly  from  divine  ap- 
pointment, it  is  true  that  such  appointment  conduces  ma- 
terially to  its  worth.  The  reason  is  manifest,  and  it  is 
this:  No  expiatory  offering  could  be  admitted,  in  the 
administration  of  the  divine  government,  to  possess  the 
requisite  value,  unless  it  were  sanctioned  by  divine  ap- 
proval. Christ’s  atonement  was  divinely  appointed.  In 
proof  of  this  I refer  to  two  out  of  many  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture : “ Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world “ Him  hath  God  the  Father  sealed.’’ 
John  i.  29;  vi.  27.  In  the  former  of  these  passages  Christ 
is  referred  to  in  his  sacrificial  character,  and  is  called  the 
Lamb  of  God — that  is,  the  Lamb  that  God  provided.  The 
latter  passage  probably  refers  to  a custom  observed  among 
certain  nations  of  antiquity.  That  custom  was  to  place  a % 
seal  on  every  animal  selected  for  sacrifice.  Wherever  the 
seal  was  seen  it  was  known  that  the  animal  was  destined 
to  the  sacrificial  altar.  God  the  Father  sealed  his  Son, 
designated  him  as  the  Messiah,  the  Mediator,  and  set 
him  forth  as  a propitiation.  See  Rom.  iii.  25.  It  is  plain, 
therefore,  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  possesses  whatever 
value  divine  appointment  can  confer.  In  relying  on  this 


240 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


/ 


atonement  we  rely  on  God’s  constituted  and  approved 
medium  of  salvation. 

3.  The  dignity  of  his  person.  This  supplies  the.  strongest 
argument  in  proof  of  the  value  of  Christ’s  atonement. 
Every  sacrifice  is,  according  to  the  logic  of  Scripture, 
materially  affected  by  the  character  of  its  victim.  This 
is  the  reasoning  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews:  “It  is 
not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should 
take  awrav  sins.”  x.  4.  Why?  Such  sacrifices  were  di- 
vinely appointed.  We  see,  therefore,  that  divine  appoint- 
ment does  not  of  itself  give  requisite  value  to  a sacrifice. 
But  why  could  not  animal  sacrifices  take  away  sins? 
There  was  a want  of  dignity  and  worth  in  the  victims 
sacrificed,  and  for  this  reason  their  blood  was  ineffica- 
cious. This  blood  could  make,  and  did  make,  ceremo- 
nial atonements,  but  was  entirely  ^incompetent  to  make 
a real  atonement  for  sin.  But  behold  the  Victim  slain 
oi  ce  for  all.  Let  the  intelligent  universe  contemplate 
him.  Who  is  he?  This  question  is  answered  in  the 
chapter  on  the  Person  of  Christ.  The  Sufferer  of  Cal- 
vary is  the  God-man,  the  Christ.  All  the  majestic  glories 
of  Supreme  Deity  and  all  the  excellences  of  sinless  hu- 
manity belong  to  him.  It  was  the  union  of  divinity  and 
humanity  in  the  person  of  Christ  that  gave  atoning  merit 
to  the  blood  he  shed  on  the  cross.  While  suffering  and 
death  are  to  be  restricted  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ, 
we  may  well  rejoice  in  the  belief  that  his  divinity  impart- 
ed infinite  worth  to  the  sufferings  and  blood  and  death  of 
his  humanity.  Thus  the  atonement  was  made.  Nor  is 
there  anything  to  forbid  the  belief  that  the  atoning  ago- 
nies of  Jesus  possess  as  great  value  as  if  his  divinity  had 
been  capable  of  suffering  and  had  really  suffered.  The 
merits  of  his  death  grow  out  of  the  divine  element  in 
the  twofold  constitution  of  his  person.  Were  this  ele- 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 


241 


ment  abstracted,  his  death  would  be  nothing  more  than  a 
martyr’s  death,  whereas  the  Scriptures  represent  it  as  an 
atoning  death.  In  this  aspect  it  is  unlike  all  other  deaths ; 
it  is  unique,  and  clothed  with  a glory  all  its  own.  Now,  if 
the  worth  of  Christ’s  sacrifice  arises  chiefly  from  the  dig- 
nity of  his  person,  while  the  dignity  of  his  person  grows 
out  of  his  divinity,  and  is  inseparable  from  it,  who  can  set 
limits  to  the  value  of  his  atonement  when  divinity  is  the 
chief  factor  in  the  creation  of  that  value?  Must  it  not 
be,  by  a sublime  logical  necessity,  infinite?  Must  not  its 
merits  be  exhaustless?  It  cannot  be  too  earnestly  insist- 
ed on  that  the  strongest  proof  of  the  value  of  Christ’s 
atonement  is  furnished  by  the  dignity  of  his  person  as 
the  God-man;  and  this  suggests,  by  contrast,  the  worth- 
lessness of  those  schemes  of  theology,  so  called,  which 
deny  the  Deity  of  Christ.  A denial  of  this  fundamental 
truth  leads  to  a denial  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement. 
For  if  Christ  is  not  divine,  he  could  not  become  the  Sub- 
stitute for  sinners,  and  substitution  is  indispensable  to 
atonement.  To  reject  the  divinity  of  Jesus  is  a virtual 
rejection  of  every  truth  pertaining  to  a sinner’s  salvation. 
It  makes  the  obedience  of  his  life  of  no  avail,  and  takes 
from  his  death  its  redemptive  significance.  I do  not  see 
how  salvation  is  possible  to  those  who  deny  the  divinity 
of  Christ.  For  them  I see  no  comfort  in  the  gospel  of  the 
grace  of  God.  But  there  is  precious  consolation  for  all 
who  receive  Christ  as  the  gospel  reveals  him,  and  who, 
in  the  fulness  of  their  hearts,  adopt  the  words  of 
Thomas,  “ My  Lord  and  my  God!”  John  xx.  28. 

IV.  The  Extent  of  the  Atonement. 

This  topic,  if  considered  in  all  its  amplitude,  would  em- 
brace the  atonement  in  its  relations  to  the  universe.  That 
it  sustains  such  relations  is  entirely  credible,  but  we  are 
21 


242 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


specially  concerned  with  its  relation  to  God  and  mem 
In  this  view  the  subject  is  one  of  deep  personal  interest 
to  all  the  human  race.  As  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  atonement  for  the  salvation  of  the  world, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  and  there  need  be  no  controversy. 
If  as  has  been  shown,  the  value  of  the  atonement  arises 
chiefly  from  the  dignity  of  Christ’s  person,  and  if  his  dig- 
nity results  by  a sublime  necessity  from  his  divinity,  it  is 
a grand  impertinence  to  attempt  to  limit  its  sufficiency. 
So*  far  as  the  claims  of  law  and  justice  are  concerned, 
the  atonement  has  obviated  every  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
any  sinner’s  salvation.  In  supplying  a basis  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  mercy  in  one  instance  it  supplies  a basis  for  the 
exercise  of  mercy  in  innumerable  instances.  It  places 
the  world,  to  use  the  language  of  Robert  Hall,  “in  a 
salvable  state.”  It  makes  salvation  an  attainable  object. 
That  is,  all  men,  in  consequence  of  the  atonement,  oc- 
cupy a position  where  saving  influences  can  reach  them. 
There  is  no  natural  impossibility  in  the  way  of  their  sal- 
vation. If  it  be  asked  why  all  men  are.  not  saved,  I re- 
ply, The  answer  is  not  to  be  sought  in  the  atonement,  but 
in  the  culpable  unwillingness  of  sinners  to  be  saved. 
Here  the  question  is  to  be  left,  and  here  it  ought  always 
to  have  been  left. 

The  sufficiency  of  the  provisions  of  the  atonement  for 
the  world’s  salvation,  is  the  only  basis  on  which  can  con- 
sistently rest  the  universal  invitations  of  the  gospel.  On 
this  point  I cannot  express  my  views  so  well  as  Andrew 
Fuller  has  done  in  the  following  language: 

“ It  is  a fact  that  the  Scriptures  rest  the  general  invita- 
tions of  the  gospel  upon  the  atonement  of  Christ.  But 
if  there  were  not  a sufficiency  in  the  atonement  for  the 
salvation  of  sinners  without  distinction,  how  could  the 
ambassadors  of  Christ  beseech  them  to  be  reconciled  to 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST . 


243 


God,  and  that  from  the  consideration  of  his  having  been 
made  sin  for  us  who  knew'  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him?  What  would  you 
think  of  the  fallen  angels  being  invited  to  be  reconciled  to 
God  from  the  consideration  of  an  atonement  having  been 
made  for  fallen  men?  You  would  say,  It  is  inviting  th.em 
to  partake  of  a benefit  which  has  no  existence , the  obtain- 
ing of  which,  therefore,  is  naturally  impossible.  Upon  the 
supposition  of  the  atonement  being  insufficent  for  the 
salvation  of  any  more  than  are  actually  saved,  the  non- 
elect, however,  with  respect  to  a being  reconciled  to  God 
through  it,  are  in  the  same  state  as  the  fallen  angels ; that 
is,  the  thing  is  not  only  morally,  but  naturally  impossible. 
But  if  there  be  an  objective  fulness  in  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  sufficient  for  any  number  of  sinners,  were  they  to 
believe  in  him,  there  is  no  other  impossibility  in  the  way 
of  any  man’s  salvation,  to  whom  the  gospel  comes  at 
/east,  than  what  arises  from  the  state  of  his  owrn  mind. 
The  intention  of  God  not  to  remove  this  impossibility, 
and  so  not  to  save  him,  is  a purpose  to  withhold  not 
only  that  which  he  was  not  obliged  to  bestow,  but  that 
which  is  never  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  necessary 
to  the  consistency  of  exhortations  or  invitations. 

“ I do  not  deny  that  there  is  difficulty  in  these  state- 
ments, but  it  belongs  to  the  general  subject  of  reconcil- 
ing the  purposes  of  God  with  the  agency  of  man ; 
wdiereas  in  the  other  case  God  is  represented  as  inviting 
sinners  to  partake  of  what  has  no  existence,  and  wThich, 
therefore,  is  physically  impossible.  The  one,  while  it 
ascribes  the  salvation  of  the  believer  in  every  stage  of  it 
to  mere  grace,  renders  the  unbeliever  inexcusable;  which 
the  other,  I conceive,  does  not.  In  short,  we  must  either 
acknowledge  an  objective  fulness  in  Christ’s  atonement 
for  the  salvation  of  the  wrhole  world,  were  the  whole 


244 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


world  to  believe  in  him,  or,  in  opposition  to  Scripture 
and  common  sense,  confine  our  invitations  to  believe  to 
such  persons  as  have  believed  already.”1 

This  extract  from  the  writings  of  Mr.  Fuller  is  com- 
mended to  candid  and  earnest  consideration,'  especiall}T 
that  part  of  it  which  presents  the  absurdity  of  offering 
salvation  to  fallen  angels  because  an  atonement  has  been 
made  for  fallen  men.  The  absurdity  arises  from  the 
fact  that  the  atonement  has  no  reference  to  fallen  angels  ; 
and  if  there  are  sinners  of  Adam’s  race  to  whom  it  has 
no  more  reference  than  to  fallen  angels,  the  offer  of  sal- 
vation to  those  sinners  would  be  a repetition  of  the 
absurdity. 

The  sufficiency  of  the  provisions  of  the  atonement  for 
the  salvation  of  all  the  world  is  the  only  doctrine  which 
harmonizes  with  the  commission  of  Christ  to  the  apostles  : 
“ Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature : he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ; 
but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.”  Mark  xvi.  15, 16. 
According  to  this  commission,  salvation  is  to  be  offered 
to  the  whole  human  family.  Language  could  be  neither 
more  general  nor  more  specific — “ into  all  the  world,” 
“to  every  creature.”  But  the  fearful  intimation  is  that 
some  will  not  believe,  and  through  unbelief  will  incur 
damnation.  It  must  then  be  the  duty  of  all  to  believe. 
Believe  what?  The  gospel.  And  what  is  it  to  believe 
the  gospel  ? It  is  so  to  credit  its  facts  and  its  truths  as  to 
trust  in  Christ  for  salvation.  Faith  is  said  to  be  “ in  his 
blood ;”  that  is,  it  involves  reliance  on  the  atonement 
made  by  his  blood.  If,  then,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  men 
to  believe,  and  if  faith  implies  reliance  on  the  atone- 
ment, and  if  the  atonement  was  made  for  a part  of  the 

1 Works , ^ ol.  ii.  pp  691,  692,  American  Baptist  Publication  Society’s 
edition. 


THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST 


245 


race  only,  it  follows  that  it  is  the  duty  of  those  for 
whom  no  atonement  was  made  to  rely  on  that  which 
has  no  existence.  This  is  an  absurdity.  The  more  the 
point  is  considered,  the  more  evident  it  will  appear  that 
the  duty  of  all  men  to  believe  the  gospel  is  inseparable 
from  the  “ objective  fulness  ” of  the  provisions  of  the 
atonement  for  the  salvation  of  all  men. 

Again,  in  believing  in  Christ  w'e  not  only  believe, 
primarily,  that  he  died  for  sinners,  but,  secondarily,  that 
he  died  for  us  as  included  among  sinners.  The  latter 
belief  is  by  no  means  to  be  made  so  prominent  as  the 
former,  but  it  is  essential  to  a joyous  appropriation  of 
the  blessings  of  salvation.  Now,  if  Christ  did  not  die  for 
all,  and  if  it  is  the  duty  of  all  to  believe  in  him,  it  is  the 
duty  of  some — those  for  whom  he  did  not  die — to  believe 
an  untruth.  This  also  reduces  the  matter  to  an  absurdity, 
for  it  cannot  be  the  duty  of  any  one  to  believe  what  is 
not  true.  We  must  either  give  up  the  position  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  all  men  to  believe  the  gospel,  or 
admit  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  has  reference  to 
all  men. 

Much  more  might  be  said  on  this  point,  but  there 
is  not  room  for  more  in  the  narrow  limits  of  a com- 
pendium  of  theology.  Such  is  the  extent  of  the  atone- 
ment, that  salvation  is  offered  to  all  men ; nor  dare  we 
question  God’s  sincerity  in  making  the  offer.  While  the 
atoning  merit  of  the  blood  of  Christ  is  infinite,  its  saving 
efficacy  is  restricted  to  its  application.  We  may  therefore 
say  of  the  atonement  that  it  is  so  general  that  all  are  saved 
who  “ come  to  God  ” by  Christ,  and  so  limited  that  none 
are  saved  who  do  not  “come  to  God  ” through  the  Media- 
tor, “ the  man  Christ  Jesus  who  gave  himself  a ransom  for 
all.”  1 Tim.  ii.  5,  6. 

21  * 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


THE  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST. 

Atonement  by  sacrifice,  being  the  first  branch  of  the 
priestly  office  of  Christ,  is  appropriately  followed  by  In- 
tercession, which  is  the  second  part  of  the  same  office. 
A.s  the  literal  meaning  of  intercession  is  “ going  between,” 
it  will  be  seen  that  in  this  sense  it  might  be  used  as  syn- 
onymous with  mediation,  since  Christ  in  the  whole  of  his 
mediatorial  work  occupies  a position  between  God  and  men. 
The  Scriptures,  however,  employ  the  term  in  a more 
limited  sense,  not  as  including  the  atonement,  but  as  re- 
lated to  it  and  founded  on  it.  This  is  the  import  of  the 
word  in  theological  writings.  In  treating  of  the  inter- 
cession of  Christ  it  will  be  well  to  consider  the  follow- 
ing points: 

1.  The  fact  of  his  intercession . Proof  of  this  fact  is  found 
in  such  passages  as  these : “ It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea, 
rather,  that  is  risen  again,  who  is  even  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us”  (Rom.  viii. 
34) ; “ Wherefore  he  is  able  also  to  save  them  to  the  utter- 
most that  come  unto  God  -by  him,  seeing  he  ever  livetli  to 
make  intercession  for  them  ” (Heb.  vii.  25)  ; “ My  little 
children,  these  things  write  I unto  you,  that  ye  sin  not. 
And  if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous.”  1 John  ii.  1. 

In  the  first  two  of  these  passages  it  is  affirmed  that 
246 


THE  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST. 


247 


Christ  makes  intercession.  Wj  are  not  left  to  infer  that 
he  intercedes,  but  the  assertion  is  positive  that  he  does. 
In  the  last  passage  he  is  termed  “ an  Advocate  with  the 
Father.”  His  advocacy  is  his  intercession.  Let  us  accept 
with  gratitude  the  blessed  fact  that  Christ  intercedes,  and 
notice — 

2.  Where  he  intercedes.  The  place  is  heaven.  I do  not 
mean  that  his  prayer  as  recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  John 
(chap,  xvii.)  is  not  properly  termed  his  intercessory  prayer, 
but  that  heaven  is  emphatically  the  place  in  which  he 
makes  intercession.  “ For  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the 
holy  places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of  the 
true ; but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence 
of  God  for  us.”  Heb.  ix.  24.  There  is  here  reference  to  the 
entrance  of  the  Jewish  high  priest  every  year  into  the  holy 
place,  or  rather  the  most  holy  place,  of  the  tabernacle  or 
temple.  As  the  high  priest  was  a type  of  Christ,  so  the 
most  holy  place  was  a type  of  heaven.  The  high  priest, 
entered  within  the  veil  by  the  blood  of  a slain  animal,  but 
of  Christ  it  is  said  by  his  own  blood  “he  entered  in  once 
into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption 
for  us.”  Heb.  ix.  12.  Peter  says  of  Jesus,  “ Who  is  gone  into 
heaven,  and  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God.”-l  Pet.  iii.  22. 
Heaven  is  the  place  in  which  Christ  ever  lives  to  intercede, 
“a  high  priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec.’ 
Heb.  vi.  20. 

3.  The  basis  of  his  intercession.  This  is  manifestly  his  own 
atoning  death.  The  plea  which  he  urges  in  the  presence 
of  God  for  us  cannot  rest  on  our  merit,  for  we  have  no 
merit.  It  cannot  recognize  our  worthiness,  for  there  is  no 
worthiness  in  us.  Nor  does  our  helpless  wretchedness 
furnish  the  reason  wThich  our  Intercessor  urges  in  our 
favor.  This  wretchedness,  brought  on  us  by  our  own  sin, 
rather  suggests  that  we  be  left  to  ourselves.  There  are  no 


248 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


considerations  personal  to  ourselves  which  our  great  High 
Priest  can  plead  in  our  behalf.  His  atoning  death  on 
Calvary  is  his  plea.  He  died,  and  therefore  pleads  that 
those  for  whom  he  died  may  live.  All  the  reasons  con- 
nected with  their  salvation  sustain  a vital  relation  to  his 
death.  He  intercedes  in  heaven,  because  he  died  on  earth 
The  heavenly  intercession  was  preceded  by  the  earthly 
sacrifice,  and  the  value  of  the  sacrifice  makes  the  inter- 
cession efficacious.  It  is  said  that  “ Christ  also  hath  loved 
us,  and  hath  given  himself  for  us  an  offering  and  a sacri- 
fice to  God  for  a sweet-smelling  savor.”  Eph.  v.  2.  This 
language  denotes  that  the  sacrifice  is  acceptable  to  the 
Father,  and  for  this  reason  the  intercession  of  the  Son  is 
also  acceptable.  The  words  heard  more  than  once  from 
the  excellent  glory,  “ This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I 
am  well  pleased,”  are  full  of  meaning.  They  are  sugges- 
tive of  the  idea  that,  as  God  is  well  pleased  with  his  Son, 
he  is  well  pleased  with  his  atonement,  and  therefore 
well  pleased  to  grant,  through  the  atonement,  the  requests 
presented  by  his  interceding  Son.  Hence,  when  we  are 
told  that  u we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus 
Christ  the  righteous,”  we  are  told  also  that  “ he  is  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins.”  1 John  ii.  1,  2.  Thus  the  advocacy 
of  Christ  is  inseparable  from  his  atonement,  for  his  inter- 
cession is  the  outgrowth  of  his  sacrificial  death. 

4.  His  qualifications  as  Intercessor.  Of  these  I shall  refer 
only  to  the  more  prominent : 

(a)  He  has  authority  to  intercede.  In  referring  to  the 
Jewish  priesthood  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews says : “ And  no  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  him- 
self, but  he  that  is  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron.  So  also 
Christ  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made  an  high  priest : 
but  he  [glorified  him]  that  said  unto  him,  Thou  art  my 
Son,  to-day  have  I begotten  thee.”  Heb.  v.  4,  5.  It  is  true 


THE  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST. 


249 


that  this  language  is  as  applicable  to  Christ  in  his  work 
of  sacrifice  as  in  that  of  intercession ; but  the  latter  topic 
is  now  under  consideration.  Christ  has  the  right  to  in- 
tercede, and  his  intercession  is  therefore  authoritative. 
He  does  not  appear  as  an  intruder  in  the  court  of  heaven. 
He  has  rightfully  entered  within  the  veil,  for  his  own 
atoning  blood  has  given  him  the  right  of  entrance.  He 
u appears  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us,”  and  he  docs  so 
in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion. As  already  said  in  substance,  he  bases  his  inter- 
cessory pleas  on  his  atonement,  made  by  appointment 
and  approval  of  the  Father,  and  therefore  his  presence 
as  Intercessor  in  heaven  is  in  accordance  with  the 
Father’s  good  pleasure.  Christ  intercedes  with  rightful 
authority. 

(6)  The  righteousness  of  his  character.  This  differs 
from  rightful  authority.  A king  may  have  rightful  au- 
thority, his  occupancy  of  the  throne  may  be  constitu- 
tional, yet  he  may  be  an  unrighteous  man.  Historical 
illustrations  of  this  truth  are  without  number.  The  cha- 
racter of  Christ  is  perfect.  It  is  the  bright  focus  in  which 
all  the  rays  of  glory  meet.  Eulogy  is  exhausted  when  it 
is  said  of  him  that  he  is  “holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  sep- 
arate from  sinners.”  Heb.  vii.  26.  In  the  same  connec- 
tion we  are  told  that  “ such  an  high  priest  became  us  ” — 
that  is,  was  suitable  for  us.  This  truth  we  are  obliged  to 
accept,  for  it  is  self-evident  that  an  intercessor  of  unright- 
eous character  could  not  be  permitted  to  plead  our  cause 
in  the  presence  of  a God  whose  name  is  The  Holy  One . He 
who  mediates  between  a righteous  God  anil  sinful  men 
must  himself  be  righteous.  Any  defect  of  character 
would  be  a fatal  disqualification.  Sin  has  so  disgraced 
and  degraded  us  that  it  cannot  comport  with  his  maj- 
esty for  God  to  permit  us  in  person  to  approach  him. 


250 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


Wre  dare  not  personally  draw  near  to  him.  Every  at 
tempt  to  do  so  would  be  repelled.  We  must  approach 
him  in  the  name  of  an  Advocate.  We  must  appear  be- 
fore him  by  Attorney.  Jesus  is  our  Attorney,  and  in 
connection  with  his  advocacy  he  is  termed  “ the  right • 
eous .”  It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  in  his  intercessions 
there  is  an  inflexible  adherence  to  the  principles  of  right- 
eousness. There  is  no  connivance  at  sin,  but  a decided 
condemnation  of  it,  and  at  the  same  time  a plea  for  its 
pardon  through  the  blood  of  the  cross.  It  is  a most  en- 
couraging fact  that  our  Advocate  in  the  court  of  heaven 
is  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous. 

(c)  He  is  full  of  sympathy.  This  qualification  may 
be  properly  considered  in  connection  with  the  preceding. 
While  the  righteous  element  in  the  character  of  our  In- 
tercessor makes  it  certain  that  he  will  properly  respect 
and  guard  the  interests  of  the  divine  government,  his 
sympathy  for  the  subjects  of  his  intercession  leads  him 
to  pity  them  and  to  make  all  necessary  allowances  for 
them. 

What  says  an  inspired  writer  on  this  important  point? 
— u Seeing,  then,  that  we  have  a great  high  priest,  that  is 
passed  into  the  heavens  [rather,  through  the  heavens , as 
Jewish  high  priests  passed  through  the  veil],  Jesus,  the 
Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  profession.  For  we  have 
not  an  high  priest  which  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feel- 
ing of  our  infirmities,  but  was  in  all  points  tempted  like 
as  we  are  yet  without  sin.  Let  us  therefore  come  boldly 
unto  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and 
find  grace  to  help  in  time  of  need.”  Heb.  iv.  14-16.  Some 
in  apostolic  times  may  have  been  tempted  to  believe  that 
the  exaltation  of  the  Son  of  God  to  the  throne  of  glory 
precluded  sympathy  for  men.  But  the  sacred  writer  gives 
assurance  of  Christ’s  sympathy,  and  gives  the  best  reason 


THE  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST 


251 


for  its  exercise:  “For  we  have  not  rn  high  priest  who 
cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities.” 
This  double  negative  is  equivalent  to  an  affirmative,  and 
the  truth  taught  is  that  our  High  Priest  is  touched  with 
the  feeling  of  our  infirmities.  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  in  the  Greek  we  have  the  word  from  which  we  de- 
rive our  word  “sympathize,”  and  the  literal  rendering 
would  be  “to  sympathize  with  our  infirmities;”  but  who 
can  give  up  the  strong  phrase,  “ touched  with  the  feeling 
of”?  Christ  is  a sympathizing  Intercessor.  His  heart  is 
full  of  compassion — as  full  of  compassion  now  as  when 
it  throbbed  and  bled  with  anguish  on  the  cross. 

But  why  is  Christ  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  in- 
firmities? The  reason  assigned  is  that  he  “was  in  all 
points  tempted  like  as  we  are.”  During  his  humiliation 
on  earth  he  experienced  temptation  in  all  its  power-  and 
in  all  its  variety.  We  may  not  be  able  to  understand  how 
he  could  be  tempted  in  every  respect  as  we  are,  but  we 
have  the  inspired  words,  “ in  all  points  tempted  like  as 
we  are.”  The  scriptural  teaching  is  that  by  personal  ex- 
perience of  temptation  he  acquired  the  habit  of  sympa- 
thizing with  his  followers  in  their  temptations,  and  that 
having  “ suffered,  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succor  those 
that  are  tempted.”  Heb.  ii.  18. 

Tn  view,  therefore,  of  the  sympathy  of  Christ  and  of  the 
reason  for  its  exercise,  there  is  abundant  encouragement 
to  come  to  the  throne  of  grace.  The  intercession  of  a 
compassionate  Saviour  in  heaven  may  well  call  forth  the 
earnest  prayers  of  the  saints  on  earth.  There  is  no  fact 
better  adapted  to  excite  the  spirit  of  prayer  and  suppli- 
cation. 

5.  For  whom  does  Christ  intercede  ? I shall  not  take  it  on 
myself  to  affirm  that  there  is  not  a sense  in  which  Christ 
may  be  said  co  intercede  for  those  who  will  not  be  finally 


252 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


saved,  even  as  be  offers  them  salvation  in  the  gospel.  Be 
this  as  it  may,  all  will  admit  that  Christ  intercedes  spe- 
cially for  his  people,  those  given  him  by  the  Father.  If 
we  wish  to  know  what  blessings  he  asks  in  behalf  of  his 
disciples,  we  need  only  refer  to  his  intercessory  prayer  as 
recorded  by  the  evangelist  John,  chap.  xvii.  There  is 
nothing  to  forbid  the  belief  that  this  prayer  was  a speci- 
men and  an  anticipation  of  his  intercession  in  heaven. 
He  says  of  his  disciples,  “ I pray  for  them,”  and  his 
prayer  expanded  itself  into  four  prominent  petitions,  as 
follows : 

(a)  Their  preservation  from  evil.  He  said,  “ I pray  not 
that  thou  shouldest  take  them  out  of  the  world,  but  that 
thou  shouldest  keep  them  from  the  evil.”  John  xvii.  15. 
Some  suppose  that  “ the  evil  ” here  referred  to  means  the 
evil  one — that  is,  Satan — but  the  more  satisfactory  view 
is  that  evil  in  general,  evil  in  its  connection  with  the 
world,  is  meant.  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that 
Satan  has  much  to  do  with  evil  in  all  its  forms.  Paul 
speaks  of  £‘  this  present  evil  world.”  Gal.  i.  4.  The  world 
is  full  of  evil.  We  see  evil  everywhere  and  in  all  circum- 
stances. It  is  to  be  found  in  unsanctified  prosperity  and 
in  unsanctified  adversity.  It  is  to  be  seen  in  boasting 
wealth  and  in  complaining  poverty,  nor  is  a competency 
a shield  from  it.  No  situation  in  life  protects  from  the  in- 
cursions of  evil.  The  world  is  a foe  to  grace,  and  this 
truth  Christians  learn  to  their  sorrow.  They  are  in  dan- 
ger from  its  fascinating  smiles,  from  its  disparaging  ridi- 
cule, and  from  its  intimidating  frowns.  Can  they  in  their 
)wn  strength  preserve  themselves  from  the  evil  to  which 
they  are  exposed?  As  well  may  we  ask  whether  the  chaff 
of  the  threshing-floor  can  resist  the  victorious  progress  of 
the  storm.  There  is  absolutely  no  hope  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  Christians  from  evil,  unless  they  are  “ kept  by  the 


THE  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST. 


253 


power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation.”  1 Pet.  i.  5. 
That  they  may  be  thus  kept  is  one  of  the  purposes  which 
Christ  has  in  view  in  his  intercession.  He  intercedes  for 
his  disciples,  and  asks  of  the  Father  that  they  may  he 
preserved  from  the  evil  which  surrounds  them.  The 
words  of  Jesus  to  Peter  are  very  suggestive:  “ Simon, 
Simon,  behold,  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he 
may  sift  you  as  wheat:  but  I have  prayed  for  thee,  that 
thy  faith  fail  not.”  Luke  xxii.  31,  32.  We  may  well  con- 
sole ourselves  with  the  thought  that  our  Intercessor  in 
heaven  pra}^s  for  all  his  followers  that  their  faith  fail  not, 
and  that  through  their  faith  they  may  be  preserved  from 
all  the  phases  of  worldly  evil.  Christians  themselves 
pray  for  the  accomplishment  of  these  objects,  and  their 
prayers  have  a blessed  connection  with  the  incense  of 
Christ’s  intercession,  as  we  are  probably  taught  in  Rev. 
viii.  3. 

(b)  Their  sanctification  through  the  truth.  Jesus  said, 
Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth : thy  word  is  truth.” 

John  xvii.  17.  This  is  a matter  of  vital  importance,  but 
as  the  subject  of  Sanctification  is  considered  elsewdiere,1 
it  is  not  dwelt  upon  here.  I only  ask  the  reader  to  re- 
member that  Jesus  intercedes  for  his  disciples  that 
they  may  be  sanctified. 

(c)  Their  unity.  “ Neither  pray  I for  these  alone,  but 
for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their 
word ; that  they  all  may  be  one ; as  thou,  Father,  art  in 
me,  and  I in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us : that 
the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.”  John  xvii. 
20,  21.  In  these  precious  words  the  first  thing  that  strikes 
us  is  the  comprehensiveness  of  this  prayer,  which  em- 
braces all  believers,  all  who  shall  believe  in  Christ 
through  the  word  of  the  apostles.  It  is  delightful  for 

1 See  Chapter  XXI 


22 


254 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


the  saints  in  all  generations  and  in  all  climes  to  know 
that  Jesus  prayed  for  them  on  earth  and  intercedes  for 
them  in  heaven.  In  the  verses  just  quoted  Christ  prays 
for  the  oneness  of  his  followers — “ that  they  all  may  be 
one.”  It  seems  most  reasonable  that  there  should  be 
unity  among  those  who  have  the  same  faith  in  the  same 
Saviour.  There  was  for  a time  in  the  church  at  Jeru- 
salem an  exemplification  of  this  unity,  fcr  it  is  said  that 
“ the  multitude  of  them  that  believed  were  of  one  heart 
and  of  one  soul.”  Acts  iv.  32.  Christ  recognizes,  as  the 
model  of  the  union  for  which  he  prays,  the  oneness  be- 
tween the  Father  and  himself — “ as  thou,  Father,  art  in 
me  and  I in  thee,  tha‘t  they  also  may  be  one  in  us.”  John 
xvii.  21.  He  refers  also  to  the  effect  which  unity  among 
his  disciples  would  have  upon  the  wTorld — “ that  the  world 
may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.”  How  important  to 
the  best  interests  of  the  world  is  unity  among  those  who 
believe  in  Christ!  For  this  unity,  Christ  intercedes  in 
heaven,  and  we  look  for  the  day  when'  his  people  shall 
be  one — one  in  their  loyalty  to  truth,  one  in  faith,  one 
in  love,  one  in  hope,  and  one  in  consecration  to  the  work 
of  the  Lord. 

( d ) Their  admittance  into  heaven.  “Father,  I will 
that  they  also,  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  be  with  me 
where  I am ; that  they  may  behold  my  glory.”  John 
xvii.  24. 

This,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  the  last  petition  offered  on 
earth  by  Christ  for  his  disciples,  and  it  is  doubtless 
repeated  in  his  intercessions  in  heaven.  When  this 
request  is  granted  the  work  of  intercession  will  cease, 
or,  at  any  rate,  we  can  see  no  reason  for  its  continuance. 
Christ  does  not  in  so  many  words  pray  that  those  given 
him  by  the  Father  shall  be  glorified  in  heaven,  but  he 
says  that  which  is  in  substance  the  same — “ be  with  me 


THE  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST. 


255 


where  I am.”  What  heaven  other  than  that  created  by 
the  presence  of  Christ  can  the  saints  desire?  Was  not 
this  Paul’s  leading  conception  of  heaven  ? He  wrote,  “ ab- 
sent from  the  body,  and  present  with  the  Lord  ” (2  Cor. 
yr.  8) ; “ having  a desire  to  depart,  and  to  be  with  Christ ; 
which  is  far  better.”  Phil.  i.  23.  The  same  apostle,  refer- 
ring to  glorified  saints  after  the  resurrection,  and  including 
himself  among  them,  says,  “ And  so  shall  we  ever  be  with 
the  Lord.”  1 Thess.  iv.  17.  Christ  so  loves  those  who 
believe  in  him  that  he  desires  to  have  them  with  him. 
He  will  never  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  so  as  to  be 
satisfied,  till  they  are  in  his  immediate  presence.  His 
intercession  based  on  his  death  will  secure  their  admit- 
tance into  glory.  “ For  if,  when  we  were  enemies,  we 
were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much 
more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life.” 
Rom.  v.  10.  Yes,  “ saved  by  his  life,”  for  he  lives  to  inter- 
cede, lives  to  carry  into  full  accomplishment  the  purposes 
of  his  death.  Prominent  among  these  purposes  was  the 
glorification  of  his  saints  in  the  presence  of  his 'Father. 
He  said  to  his  first  disciples,  and  through  them  to  all 
his  disciples,  “ I go  to  prepare  a place  for  you.  And  if  I 
gc  and  prepare  a place  for  you,  I will  come  again,  and 
receive  you  unto  myself ; that  where  I am,  there  ye  may 
be  also.”  John  xiv.  2,  3.  The  preparation  of  this  place 
is,  doubtless,  connected  with  the  intercession  of  Christ. 
What  a place  it  will  be ! Bright  with  glory,  with  what 
Christ  calls,  “my  glory;”  and  it  is  his  will  that  those 
ransomed  by  his  blood  shall  behold  this  glory  and 
exult  in  its  splendors  for  evermore, 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


REGENERATION \ WITH  ITS  A T TEN  DA  N TS,  REPEAT. 

ANCE  AND  FAITH 

It  is  evident  that  the  Scriptures  refer  to  a great  change 
in  all  who  become  Christians — a change  denoted  by  such 
forms  of  expression  as  the  following:  “ Born  again  ” 
(John  iii.  3) ; “ Rom  ” (John  iii.  5) ; “Born 

of  God”  (John  i.  13);  “Created  in  Christ  Jesus”  (Eph. 
ii.  10);  “Quickened  together  with  Christ”  (Eph.  ii.  5)°, 
“A  new  creature  ” (2  Cor.  v.  17);  “Renewed  after  the 
im^e  of  him  that  created  him  ” (Col.  iii.  10) ; “Dead  unto 
sint'TT:  alive  untooGod.”  Rom.  vi.  11.  This  change  is, 
in  theological  writings,  usually  called  Regeneration,  and 
it  is  inseparable  from  “ repentance  toward  God  and  faith 
toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.jfActs  xx.  21.  For  this 
reason  the  heading  of  this  chapter  has  been  selected,  and 
I purposely  present  in  closest  connection  Regeneration, 
Repentance,  and  Faith.  Nor  is  it  my  intention  to  dwell 
on  what  has  been  termed  “ the  order  of  time.”  Indeed, 
if  the  view  of  Calvin  and  Jonathan  Edwards  is  correct, 
regeneration  and  repentance  are  in  substance  the  same 
so  that  the  question  as  to  the  order  of  time  is  ruled  out. 
Calvin  says : 

“ In  one  word,  I apprehend  repentance  to  be  regenera- 
tion, the  end  of  which  is  the  restoration  of  the  divine 
image  within  us;  which  was  defaced,  and  almost  oblitei- 


REGENERATION,  REPENTANCE,  FAITH.  257 


ated  by  the  transgression  of  Adam.” 1 The  words  of 
Edwards  are  these:  “Ii  we  compare  one  scripture  with 
another,  it  will  be  suffieiently  manifest  that  by  regene* 
ration,  or  being  begotten  or  born  again,  the  same  change 
in  the  state  of  the  mind  is  signified  with  that  which  the 
Scripture  speaks  of  as  effected  by  true  repentance  and 
conversion.  I put  repentance  and  conversion  together, 
because  the  Scripture  puts  them  together  (Acts  iii.  19), 
and  because  they  plainly  signify  much  the  same  thing.”2 

Without  fully  endorsing  the  view  of  these  great  men, 
I may  say  that  if  regeneration  and  repentance  are  not 
identical,  they  are  so  closely  connected  that  it  is  not 
worth  while  to  inquire  whether  the  one  precedes  or  fol- 
lows the  other.  As  to  regeneration  and  faitk,  a plausible 
argument  may  be  made  in  favor  of  the  priority  of  either. 
For  example,  if  we  turn  to  John  i.  12,  13  it  seems  nat- 
ural to  suppose  that  those  who  believed  in  Christ  were 
those  who  had  been  born  of  God.  So  also  according  to  the 
correct  rendering  of  1 John  v.  1,  “ Whosoever  believeth 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  [has  been]  born  of  God.”  Some 
use  this  passage  as  it  reads  in  the  Common  Version,  “ is 
born  of  God,”  to  prove  that  faith  is  prior  to  regeneration, 
because  the  means  of  it ; but  the  argument  fails  in  view 
jf  the  fact  that  not  the  present,  but  the  perfect,  tense  is 
used  in  the  original — “ has  been  born  of  God.”  But  if 
we  turn  to  Galatians  iii.  26,  “ For  ye  are  all  the  children 
of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,”  the  obvious  view  is  that 
we  become  God’s  children  by  faith,  or,  in  other  words, 
that  faith  is  instrumental  in  effecting  regeneration.  We 
see,  therefore,  that  there  may  be  a plausible  argument  on 
either  side  of  the  question.  It  is,  perhaps,  in  view  of  this 

1 Institutes,  vol.  i.  p.  541,  edition  of  Presbyterian  Board  of  Pul*' 
lication. 

2 Works,  edition  of  1809,  vol.  vi.  p.  410. 


258 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


fact,  wisest  and  safest  to  consider  regeneration  and  faith 
simultaneous,  or  so  nearly  so  that  the  question  of  prece- 
dence should  not  be  considered  at  all.  The  adoption  of 
this  theory  will  save  us  from  perplexities  which  will 
otherwise  annoy.  For  instance,  those  insisting  on  the 
precedence  of  regeneration  are  not  a little  perplexed  when 
asked  if  there  can  he  a regenerate  unbeliever,  and  those 
taking  the  opposite  view  are  equally  perplexed  when 
asked  if  there  can  be  an  unregenerate  believer.  That 
regeneration  and  faith  are  not  separable  in  point  of 
time  is,  all  things  considered,  the  most  satisfactory  posi- 
tion. One  thing  is  certain — wherever  we  see  a regenerate 
person,  we  see  a believer  in  Christ;  and  wherever  we 
see  a believer  in  Christ,  we  see  a regenerate  person. 

After  these  explanatory  matters  I proceed  to  a dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  of  regeneration  in  the  following 
order : 

1.  The  nature  of  regeneration.  The  change  which  the 
term  implies  dogs  ■.not  pertain  primarily  to  the  physical 
nor  to  the  intellectual  faculties. } The  regenerated  man  has 
the  same  bodily  conformation  after  this  change  as  before, 
and  his  mental  peculiarities  remain.  The  intellect,  like 
the  body,  is  affected  only  so  far  as  the  moral  powers  exert 
an  influence  over  it.  This  leads  me  to  say  that  regene- 
ration is  a spiritual  change.  I call  it  a spiritual  change, 
not  only  because  it  is  produced  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  as 
will  be  shown,  but  because  it  takes  place  in  the  spirit  of 
the  subject.  The  heart  is  the  theatre  of  the  operation, 
and  the  change  is  in  the  disposition  of  the  heart.  This 
disposition,  I suppose,  lies  below  or  back  of  the  affections 
and  the  will,  controlling  the  exercise  of  the  affections  and 
the  choice  of  the  will. J That  is  to  say, -the  affections  love 
as  they  do,  and  the  will  chooses  as  it  does,  because  of  the 
state  of  the  heart,  hi  will  not  enlarge,  lest  I become  meta- 


2d  9 


REGENERATION,  REPENTANCE , FAITH. 

physical.  ^Regeneration  involves  the  illumination  of  the  un- 
derstanding, tli e consecration  of  the  affections,  and  the  rec- 
tification of  the  wilL}  To  use  Paul’s  language,  “ Ye  were 
once  darkness,  bufTnow  are  ye  light  in  the  Lord.”  Eph.  v. 
8.  The  affections  of  the  unrenewed  soul  are  placed  on 
unworthy  objects,  and  cleave  to  them  with  the  greatest 
tenacity.  There  is  no  relish  for  things  spiritual  and 
divine,  no  appreciation  of  moral  excellence,  no  love  of 
holiness  and  of  God.  Regeneration  recalls  the  affections 
from  unworthy  objects,  and  places  them  supremely  on  the 
ever-blessed  Jehovah — enshrines  them  in  his  infinitely 
perfect  character.  It  is  therefore  written,  “ Every  one 
that  loveth  is  born  of  God.”  1 John  iv.  7.  The  will  of 
the  unregenerate  man  is  perverse,  for  it  conflicts  with  the 
will  of  God.  It  chooses  cursing  and  death  rather  than 
blessing  and  life^  In  regeneration  its  obliquity  is  over- 
come and  rectified,  its  perverted  action  is  arrested  and 
changed.  “ Thy  people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of 
thy  power.”  Ps.  cx.  3.  The  will  of  the  regenerate,  being 
conformed  to  the  divine  will,  gladly  chooses  the  objects 
on  which  the  consecrated  affections  are  placed.^ 

The  definition  to  be  given  of  regeneration  must  depend 
on  the  point  of  moral  observation  we  occupy.  If,  for  ex- 
ample, we  contemplate  the  sinner  as  the  enemy  of  God, 
regeneration  is  the  removal  of  his  enmity  and  the  creation 
of  love  in  its  stead.  If  we  consider  the  sinner  the  “ child 
of  the  devil,”  regeneration  is  the  change  which  makes 
him  the  u child  of  God.”  If  we  regard  the  unregenerate 
as  totally  destitute  of  the  moral  image  of  God,  regenera 
tion  consists  in  stamping  that  image  upon  them.  Or  if 
we  view  them  as  “ dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  ” (Eph.  ii. 
1),  regeneration  is  the  beginning  of  divine  life  in  theii 
souls.  It  is  what  Paul  means  by  being  “ quickened  to- 
gether with  Christ”  (Eph.  ii.  5) — that  is,  made  spiritually 


260 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


alive  in  union  with  Christ.  Thus  various  definitions,  not 
conflicting  but  harmonious,  may  be  given  of  regeneration, 
according  to  the  points  of  moral  observation  of  which  we 
avail  ourselves. 

2.  The  necessity  of  regeneration.  This  part  of  the  subject 
has  been  somewrhat  anticipated  in  what  has  been  said  of 
the  depravity  of  our  nature^ for  it  is  depravity  that  rer 
ders  regeneration  necessary. /Depravity  has  sundered  man 
from  God,  so  that,  imHh^oxpres&ivo  -language  of  Scrbp- 
-ture,^ie  is  “alienated  from  the  life  of  God.”  Eph.  iv.  18. 
"HiTvris  a reunion  to  be  brought  abm'rtr?  There  must  be  a 
reunion  if  man  is  to  be  saved ; and  as  the  two  parties, 
God  and  man,  are  at  variance,  a change  must  take  place 
in  one  or  both  of  the  parties  before  there  can  be  recon- 
ciliation. But  God  is  unchangeable,  and  the  change,  if  it 
takes  place  at  all,  must  take  place  in  man.  We  therefore 
clearly  see  the  necessity  of  regeneration.  ItTfe^s  neces- 
sary as  the  salvation  of  the  soul  is  desirable,  for  there 
can  be  no  salvation  without  reconciliation  with  , God. 

The  necessity  of  regeneration  appears  also  in  the  fact 
that  without  it  we  cannot  become  the  children  of  God. 
Those  who  are  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus  have  been 
“ born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God.”  John  i.  13.  Being  born  of 
God  is  necessary  to  our  partaking  of  his  nature,  and  this 
participation  of  his  nature  is  implied  in  our  being  his 
children.  “That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit” 
(John.  iii.  6)— that  is,  partakes  of  the  nature  of  its  Author. 
If  we  cannot  become  the  children  of  God  without  it,  how 
important  is  regeneration  ! No  langui  ge  can  adequately 
set  forth  its  ii^portan^e^. 

/ The  necessity  of  regeneration  is  likewise  apparent,  be- 
cause the  unregenerate  cannot  enter  heaven ; and  if  they 
could,  they  would  be  miserable  there.  It  is  one  of  the  fun- 


REGENERATION,  REPENTANCE,  FAITH.  261 


damental  laws  of  social  existence  that  we  enjoy  the  socie- 
ty of  those  only  whose  dispositions  are  similar  to  our  own. 
On  the  other  hand,  social  enjoyment  results  from  conge- 
nial taste  and  feeling.  We  see  this  principle  illustrated 
every  day.  We  see  it  in  the  gay  assemblies  of  the  lovers 
of  pleasure,  in  the  vulgar  carousals  of  the  dissipated,  in 
the  associations  of  the  educated  and  the  intellectual,  and 
in  the  companies  of  the  saints  who  take  “ sweet  counsel 
together.”  In  all  these  there  is  similarity  of  feeling,  con- 
geniality of  disposition.  Now,  suppose  unregenerate  sin- 
ners were  admitted  into  heaven  and  required  to  join  in 
the  devotions  of  the  sanctified.  Would  they  be  happy  in 
the  presence  of  a God  they  do  not  love?  Would  they  be 
happy  in  rendering  reluctant  ascriptions  of  praise  to  his 
name  ? Would  they  be  happy  in  mingling  in  society  for 
which  they  feel  no  partiality?  Surely  not.  Jesus  labored 
under  no  mistake  when  he  said,  “ Ye  must  be  born  again.” 
John  iii.  7.  It  has  been  well  said,  that  u heaven  is  a pre- 
pared place  for  a prepared  people.”  ft«g^^ration  fur 
nishes  the  moral  preparation  to  relish  and  enjoy  the  bliss 
of  heaven.  This  of  itself  is  sufficient  to  show  its  great 
naoc'oaitr*. 

3.  The  Author  of  regeneration.  Who  accomplishes  this 
work?  It  is  efiected  by  divine  agency.  The  phrase 
“ born  of  God  ” is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. We  have  also  the  expression  “ born  of  the  Spir- 
it.” No  language  could  more  clearly  indicate  the  agency 
employed  in  rpgp.nprfitia^  The  Spirit  of  God  alone  can 
renew  the  soul.  Hr  is  his  'prerogative  to  quicken,  to  give 
life.  All  is  death  in  the  moral  world  without  his  influ- 
ence. What  air  or  breath  is  to  animal  life,  that  his  opera- 
tion is  to  spiritual  life.  “ It  is  the  Spirit  that  quicken- 
eth.”  John  vi.  63.  Paul  says  of  the  Corinthians,  “ Ye  are 
manifestly  declared  to  be  the  epistle  of  Christ,  ministered 


262 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


by  us,  written  not  with  ink,  but  with  the  Spirit  of  the 
living  God  ; not  in  tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshly  tables  of 
the  heart.”  2 Cor.  iii.  3.  The -oaiirruapostle , affeer  telling 
us  tha4  those  who  are  “in  Christ  are  new  creatures,”  that 
“ old  things  are  passed  away,”  and  “ all  things  are  become 
new,”  immediately  adds,  “ and  all  things  are  of  God.” 
2 Cor.  v.  17,  18.  Regeneration,  in  several  passages  of 
Scripture,  is  referred  to  under  the  imagery  of  creation. 
Who  but  God  possesses  creative  power,  the  power  to  bring 
something  out  of  nothing?^  To  create  is  his  inalienable 
prerogative,  and  it  is  algo  his  inalienable  prerogative  to 
regenerate.  ^Ie  says  himself,  “ A new  heart  also  will  I 
give  you,  and  a new  spirit  will  I put  within  you : and  I 
will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I 
will  give  you  a heart  of  flesh.”  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26.  In  the 
provisions  of  the  new  covenant  he  says,  “ I will  put  my 
laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts.” 


4.  The  means  of  regeneration . The  instrumentality  em- 
ployed is  the  gospel,  the  word  of  God.  This  is  a con- 
troverted point.  Some  argue  that  God  renews  the  soul 
without  the  intervention  of  means.  Others  suppose  that 
the  term  “ regeneration  ” may  be  used  both  in  a limited 
and  in  an  enlarged  sense.  They  concede  that  in  the  lat- 
ter sense  the  word  of  God  is  the  means  of  regeneration. 
Without  dwelling  on  these  different  views,  I quote  the 
following  passages  in  proof  of  the  instrumentality  of  di 
vine  truth  in  regeneration:  “In  Christ  Jesus  I have  be- 
gotten you  through  the  gospel  ” (1  Cor.  iv.  15) ; “ Of  his  owr. 
will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth  ” (James  i.  18); 
“ Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, by  the  v^ord  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for 
ever.”  1 Pet.  i.  23.  There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a sense  in 
which  we  are  born  of  the  Spirit ; and  these  passages  teach 


REGENERATION,  REPENTANCE , FAITH  263 


that  there  is  a sense  in  which  we  are  begotten  or  born  of 
the  word  of  God.  I know  of  no  way  of  harmonizing  the 
two  views  but  by  attributing  regeneration  to  the  agency 
of  the  Spirit  and  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth. 

God  uses  means  in  the  natural  world,  and  why  should 
lie  act  on  a different  principle  in  the  moral  world?  He 
does  not.  The  gift  of  the  Bible  and  the  institution  of 
Christian  churches  with  a gospel  ministry  prove  that  he 
does  not.  I suppose  that  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  regenerat- 
ing the  heart,  makes  use  of  scriptural  truth  previously 
lodged  in  the  understanding.  But  if  I am  asked  how 
truth  can  influence  and  instrum entally  change  a heart 
that  does  not  love  it,  I answer  I do  not  know.  If  asked 
how  the  Spirit  operates  on  the  heart  so  as  to  change  it, 
either  with  or  without  the  word  of  truth,  I must  still  say 
I do  not  know.  I can  give  no  other  answer  while  I re- 
member what  Jesus  said  to  Nicodemus:  “ The  wind  blow- 
eth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof, 
but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and  whither,  it  goeth: 
go  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.”  John  iii.  8. 
Spiritual  birth  is  a blessed  reality,  but  the  processes  of 
this  birth  are  among  “ the  secret  things  ” that  “ belong 
unto  the  Lord  our  God.”  Deut.  xxix.  29.  We  must  re- 
member, however,  that  its  importance  justifies  the  start- 
ling words,  “ To  be  born  is  an  everlasting  calamity  unless 
we  are  born  again.” 

Repentance. 

No  one  can  attentively  read  the  New  Testament  without 
receiving  the  impression  that  great  importance  is  attached 
to  repentance.  When  John  the  Baptist  came  “preaching 
in  the  wilderness  of  Judea,”  the  burden  of  his  message 
was,  “ Repent  ye:  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand  ” 
Matt.  iii.  1,  2.  When  Jesus  entered  on  his  ministry  he  said, 


264 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES 


“ The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand: 
repent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel.”  Mark  i.  15.  The  twelve 
disciples,  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
“went  out,  and  preached  that  men  should  repent.”  Maik 
vi.  12.  After  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  Peter  preached 
repentance  at  Jerusalem,  and  Paul  dwelt  upon  it  in  his 
one  discourse  at  Athens  and  in  his  many  discourses  at 
Ephesus.  (See  Acts  ii.  38 ; iii.  19 ; xvii.  30 ; xx.  21.) 

It  is,  then,  a question  of  great  importance,  What  is  re- 
pentance? The  word  of  which  it  is  a translation  in  the 
New  Testament  has  as  its  primary  meaning  after-thought, 
and  as  its  secondary  meaning  a change  of  mind.  It  is 
easy  to  see  how  the  secondary  followed  the  primary  sig- 
nification, for  in  all  ages  after-thought  has  discovered  rea- 
sons for  a change  of  mind . The  discovery  has  had  a close 
connection  with  the  depravity  of  human  nature  and  the 
fallibility  of  human  opinions.  Alas,  how  frequent  have 
been  the  occasions  for  a change  of  mind ! In  this  change 
of  mind,  so  far  as  scriptural  repentance  is  concerned,  a 
great  deal  is  involved,  as  we  shall  see ; but  I wish  first 
to  show  that  repentance  is  internal.  I mean  by  this  that 
it  is  a change  of  the  mind,  the  heart,  and  not  of  the  life, 
except  so  far  as  a change  of  life  results  from  a change  of 
mind  or  heart.  Dr.  George  Campbell  and  others  have 
not  been  happy  in  substituting  “ reform  ” and  “ reforma- 
tion ” for  “ repent ” and  “repentance.”  John  the  Baptist 
made  a clear  distinction  between  “ repentance  ” and 
“fruits  meet  for  repentance;”  and  by  the  “fruits  meet” 
he  meant  reformation  of  life.  Repentance  is  the  tree,  and 
reformation  the  fruit  it  bears.  Paul  too,  as  well  as  John, 
distinguished  between  “ repentance  ” and  “ works  meet 
for  repentance.”  Acts  xxvi.  20.  Repentance  belongs  to 
the  sphere  of  the  mind,  and  reformation  to  the  sphere 
of  the  life;  or,  in  other  words,  the  former  is  inward,  and 


REGENERATION,  REPENTANCE,  FAITH.  265 


the  latter  is  outward.  Let  no  one,  therefore,  suppose  that 
the  command  to  11 repent”  is  obeyed  by  a reformation  of 
life ; and  let  no  one  think  his  repentance  genuine,  unless 
it  leads  to  reformation  of  life.  I trust  I have  made  this 
important  distinction  plain. 

There  are  in  Greek  authors  many  instances  of  the  use 
of  the  words  translated  in  the  New  Testament  repent  and 
repentance.  Dr.  Conant  gives  several  examples  in  his 
notes  on  Matt.  iii.  2,  in  his  revised  version.  It  is  evident 
from  these  examples  that  the  Greeks  knew  what  it  was  to 
exercise  after-thought , so  as  to  change  their  minds  and  in- 
dulge sorrow  of  heart.  There  was,  however,  in  their  af- 
ter-thought, change  of  mind,  and  sorrow  of  heart,  no  con- 
sciousness of  the  evil  of  sin  as  committed  against  God. 
Nor  is  this  strange,  as  they  enjo}red  not  the  light  of  di- 
vine revelation. 

Of  the  repentance  enjoined  in  the  gospel,  the  following 
things  may  be  said — namely,  that  it  involves — 

1.  A consciousness  of  personal  sin.  It  is  a state  of  mind 
that  cannot  exist  without  conviction  of  sin.  Of  what  are 
persons  to  repent  if  they  are  not  sinners?  The  angels  in 
heaven  cannot  repent,  for  they  have  never  sinned.  Nor 
could  Adam  and  Eve  repent  in  their  state  of  innocence. 
Sin  precedes  repentance,  and  not  only  sin,  but  a con- 
sciousness of  it.  A sense  of  sin  must  take  hold  of  the 
soul  and  pervade  all  its  faculties.  I have  used  the  epi- 
thet personal , and  by  it  I mean  that  the  individual  sin- 
ner must  repent  of  his  own  sins.  I mean  that  one  man 
cannot  repent  for  another,  but  that  each  man  must  repent 
for  himself.  I suppose,  therefore,  that  those  persons  labor 
under  a mistake  who  say  that  they  have  repented  of 
Adam’s  sin.  They  may  deeply  regret  the  apostasy  of 
Adam,  and  bitterly  deplore  the  miseries  in  which  his 
race  is  involved,  but  in  strictness  of  speech  they  cannot 
23 


266 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


be  said  to  repent  of  his  sin.  They  cannot  have  a person- 
al consciousness  of  his  sin : they  can  only  have  such  a 
consciousness  of  their  own,  and  without  personal  con- 
sciousness of  sin  there  is  no  repentance. 

2.  That  sin  is  a great  evil  committed  against  God , for  which 
there  is  no  excuse.  All  sin  is  committed  against  God,  against 
his  nature,  his  will,  his  authority,  his  law,  his  justice,  his 
goodness ; and  the  evil  of  sin  arises  chiefly  from  the  fact 
that  it  is  opposed  to  God,  and  out  of  harmony  with  his 
character.  Truth  does  not  require  me  to  say,  and  I do 
not  say,  that  the  repenting  sinner  has  no  fear  of  the  con- 
sequences of  sin ; but  I do  affirm  that  the  evil  of  sin  as 
committed  against  God  is  the  thing  which  gives  the  true 
penitent  special  anxiety  and  trouble.  He  justifies  God 
and  condemns  himself.  He  makes  David’s  words  his 
own : “ Against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I sinned,  and  done 
this  evil  in  thy  sight:  that  thou  mightest  be  justified 
when  thou  speakest,  and  be  clear  when  thou  judgest.” 
Ps.  li.  4.  David  had  committed  atrocious  sins  against 
his  fellow-creatures,  but  the  thing  which  absorbed  his 
thoughts  and.  broke  his  heart  was  the  fact  that  he  had 
sinned  against  God.  The  repenting  sinner  does  not 
regard  his  sin  as  a misfortune  merely,  but  as  a crime, 
involving  deep,  personal  blameworthiness.  He  knows 
that  Satan  has  tempted  him,  but  he  does  not  lay  his 
sins  to  the  charge  of  Satan,  so  as  to  excuse  himself.  No, 
he  feels  that  he  has  sinned  without  cause  and  deserves  to 
die  without  mercy.  There  is  a deep  sense  of  shame, 
arising  from  a consciousness  of  guilt  and  ill-desert. 

3.  Hatred  of  sin.  This  is  an  essential  element  in  repent- 
ance. The  hatred  is  inseparable  from  the  change  of  mind 
already  referred  to.  The  change  of  mind  is  in  view  of 
sin,  and  the  mind  undergoes  the  change,  because  sin  js 
seen  to  be  a great  evil.  Regarded  in  this  light,  it  becomes 


EE  GENERA  TIONy  REPENTANCE,  FAITH.  267 


an  object  of  abhorrence.  At  this  point,  repentance  and 
regeneration  coincide.  Hatred  of  sin  is  among  the  pri- 
mary impulses  of  regeneration,  and  it  cannot  be  abstract- 
ed from  repentance  without  changing  its  character.  The 
repenting  sinner  hates  the  sin  and  the  sins  of  which  he 
repents.  I use  the  singular  and  the  plural  with  a pur- 
pose, meaning  by  sin  depravity,  corruption  of  nature,  and 
by  sins  actual  transgressions  prompted  by  a sinful  nature. 
There  is  hatred  of  sin  as  it  inheres  in  the  nature ; there  is 
self-loathing  on  account  of  it;  and  there  is  hatred  of  sins 
committed  in  heart  and  life.  The  salvation  of  the  gospel 
consists  chiefly  in  deliverance  from  sin ; nor  can  we  con- 
ceive  how  God  can  save  his  creatures  from  their  sins 
without  saving  them  from  the  love  of  sin — without  in- 
spiring in  them  such  hatred  of  sin  as  will  lead  them  to 
turn  from  it.  Penitential  hatred  of  sin  may  be  said  to 
be  both  general  and  specific:  it  is  general  in  the  sense 
that  it  embraces  all  sins,  and  it  is  specific  in  the  sense 
that  it  embraces  every  sin.  Sin  is  not  really  hated  unless 
it  is  hated  in  all  its  forms — hated  in  its  inward  workings 
and  in  its  outward  manifestations.  Sin  is  the  abominable 
thing  which  God  hates,  and  it  is  the  object  of  the  repent- 
ing sinner’s  hatred. 

4.  Sorrow  for  sin.  This  accompanies  the  hatred.  He 
who  repents  hates  the  sins  he  is  sorry  for,  and  is  sorry 
for  the  sins  he  hates.  The  hatred  and  the  sorrow  are 
reciprocal.  Indeed,  each  may  be  regarded  as  either 
the  cause  or  the  effect  of  the  other,  so  close  is  their 
relation. 

Those  who  would  substitute  the  term  “ reformation  ” for 
repentance  virtually  exclude  the  element  of  sorrow,  or  at 
least  they  give  it  no  prominent  place  in  the  change  de- 
noted by  their  favorite  word.  There  is  one  fact  which 
prove?  beyond  doubt  that  repentance  involves  sorrow  for 


268 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


Bin.  That  fact  is  found  in  the  words  of  Jesus . “ Then 
began  he  to  upbraid  the  cities  wherein  most  of  his 
mighty  works  were  done,  because  they  repented  not: 
Woe  unto  thee,  Chorazin ! woe  unto  thee,  Bethsaida ! fox 
if  the  mighty  works,  which  were  done  in  you,  had  been 
done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  they  would  have  repented  .long 
ago  in  sackcloth  and  ashes.”  Matt.  xi.  20,  21. 

u Sackcloth  and  ashes  ” are  scriptural  symbols  of  sor- 
row, and  of  no  common  sorrow.  They  certainly  signi- 
fied deep  contrition  and  grief  in  the  Ninevites.  (See 
Jon.  iii.  5,  6.)  History,  profane  as  well  as  sacred,  refers 
to  them  as  emblems  of  mourning.  Now,  that  Jesus 
mentioned  “ sackcloth  and  ashes  ” in  connection  with 
repentance  for  ever  settles  the  question  that  sorrow  . 
enters  into  it  as  its  central  element.  This  fact  was  so 
significant  in  the  view  of  Dr.  George  Campbell,  that  he 
could  not  venture,  in  his  Translation  of  the  Gospels , to 
substitute  in  the  above  passage  reformed  for  repented , but 
left  the  latter  word  as  in  the  Common  Version. 

It  is  as  unreasonable  as  it  is  unscriptural  to  suppose 
that  there  is  not  sorrow  in  the  change  of  mind  denoted 
by  repentance.  How  and  why  does  the  mind  change  at 
all  in  regard  to  sin,  unless  there  is  in  it  something  to 
excite  sorrow?  Whatever  calls  for  a change  of  mind 
concerning  sin  calls  for  sorrow  on  account  of  sin.  The 
heart  of  the  true  penitent  is  a broken  and  a crushed 
heart — broken  with  sorrow  and  crushed  with  grief.  How 
can  it  be  otherwise  when  sin  is  looked  at  in  conti ast 
with  the  purity  of  the  divine  character,  and  its  turpi- 
tude is  seen  in  the  light  which  shines  from  the  cross 
on  Calvary? 

5.  A purpose  to  forsake  sin.  This  purpose  is,  of  course, 
internal,  and  repentance  is  internal.  He  in  whom  is 
exemplified  the  four  preceding  things  is  obliged  to  form 


REGENERATION,  REPENTANCE , FAITH.  269 


this  purpose.  It  is  a necessity  of  his  moral  constitution. 
The  execution  of  the  purpose  is  reformation,  but  the 
purpose  itself  is  a part  of  repentance.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  elaborate  a point  so  plain  as  this,  for  no  one  can  feel 
hatred  and  sorrow  for  sin  without  forming  the  resolution 
to  abandon  it. 

In  dismissing  the  subject  of  repentance,  I may  say 
that  it  is  a reasonable,  important,  universal,  and  immedi- 
ate duty.  “ God  commands  all  men  everywhere  to  re- 
pent,” and  all  men  should  have  that  change  of  mind  in 
regard  to  sin  which  repentance  implies. 

Faith. 

Faith,  as  well  as  repentance,  accompanies  regeneration. 
But  what  is  faith  ? The  term  is  used  in  the  Scriptures  in 
more  senses  than  one.  For  example,  an  apostle  says, 
“ What  doth  it  profit,  my  brethren,  though  a man  may 
say  he  hath  faith,  and  have  not  works?  can  faith  save 
him?”  James  ii.  14.  In  the  last  clause  the  insertion  of 
the  definite  article  is  required  by  the  original  Greek — 
‘‘can  the  faith  save  him?”  That  is,  the  faith  which  is 
not  productive  of  works.  There  is  a faith,  then,  which 
is  fatally  defective  as  to  the  matter  of  salvation ; for  the 
question,  “ Can  the  faith  save  him  ?”  is  a strong  denial 
of  the  power  of  such  faith  to  save.  The  apostle  further 
says,  “ Thou  believest  that  there  is  one  God ; thou  doest 
'well : the  demons  also  believe,  and  tremble.”  ver.  19. 
Here  we  see  that  faith  in  the  unity  of  God  is  com- 
mended, but  this  faith  does  not  save  ; and  the  proof  that 
it  does  not  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  demons,  while  they 
believe  this  great  truth  and  tremble  under  what  it  implies, 
remain  unsaved.  In  the  last  verse  of  the  same  chapter 
the  apostle  gives  an  impressive  illustration  of  what  he 
means  by  a “ faith,  without  works :”  “ For  as  the  body 

23  * 


270 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


without  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without  works  is  dead 
also.”  This  illustration  all  can  understand,  for  all  know 
that  when  the  spirit  leaves  the  body  nothing  remains  but 
a mass  of  inanimate  clay.  There  is  no  life ; the  vital 
principle  is  gone.  So  faith  which  is  without  works  is 
worthless,  for  it  lias  in  it  no  saving  quality.  Such  faith 
is  a mere  intellectual  assent  to  the  truth,  or  rather  to 
some  parts  of  the  truth,  leaving  the  heart  unmoved,  and 
therefore  creating  no  motives  to  acticn.  Alas,  there  are 
many  who  have  this  faith,  and  who’  have  no  other 
faith  ! 

Jesus,  in  explaining  the  parable  of  The  Sower,  says  t 
“ They  on  the  rock  are  they  which,  when  they  hear,  re- 
ceive the  word  with  joy ; and  these  have  no  root,  which 
for  a while  believe,  and  in  time  of  temptation  fall  away.” 
Luke  viii.  13.  Here  the  reference  is  to  a temporary  faith, 
embracing  not  only  the  assent  of  the  intellect,  but  exciting 
superficially  the  feelings  of  the  heart.  Who  has  not  seen 
persons  fjtly  represented  by  the  seed  that  fell  on  the  rock 
thinly  covered  with  soil?  The  faith  of  such  persons  has 
fatal  defects,  and  therefore  it  is  transient.  They  “for  a 
while  believe,”  but  they  do  not  believe  with  the  whole 
heart.  “ They  draw  back  unto  perdition,”  and  do  not 
“believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul.”  Heb.  x.  39. 

In  view  of  the  considerations  now  presented,  it  is  mani- 
fest that  there  may  be  a faith  that  has  no  connection  with 
salvation.  It  therefore  becomes  a question  of  the  greatest 
:mportance,  What  is  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  the  faith 
which  secures  the  salvation  of  the  believer?  There  is 
but  one  answer:  It  is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  This  differs 
very  widely  from  a belief  in  the  existence  of  God  and  in 
the  historical  truth  of  the  Bible.  Many  believe  both  of 
these  facts  who  do  not  believe  in  Christ,  do  not  accept 
him  as  the  Saviour.  Christ  is  emphatically  the  object  of 


REGENERATION,  REPENTANCE \ FAITH.  271 


faith.  He  so  represented  himself  during  his  earthly  min- 
istry, as  we  may  see  from  his  words : 

“ And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 
even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up : that  whoso- 
ever belie veth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal 
life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only- 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  . . . He  that  believeth 
on  him  is  not  condemned  ” (John  iii.  14-18) ; “ He  that 
cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger;  and  he  that  believeth 
on  me  shall  never  thirst  ” (vi.  35)  ; “ He  that  believeth  in 
me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live : and  whoso- 
ever liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall  never  die.”  bu.  25, 
26. 

It  is  needless  to  multiply  quotations  from  our  Lord’s 
sayings.  The  foregoing  show  him  to  be  the  object  of 
faith  in  such  a sense  that  those  who  believe  in  him  are 
saved  from  perishing  and  put  into  possession  of  everlast- 
ing life.  It  is  also  supremely  worthy  of  notice  that  un- 
belief, which  is  a rejection  of  Christ  as  the  Saviour,  is  the 
great  sin  of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  convinces  men.  “ He 
will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and 
of  judgment:  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  me.” 
John  xvi.  8,  9.  This  language  of  Christ  teaches  the 
greatness  of  the  sin  of  unbelief.  This  sin  is  the  opposite 
of  faith,  and  as  faith  receives  Christ,  unbelief  rej-ects  him. 
As  we  read  of  “an  evil  heart  of  unbelief”  (Heb.  iii.  12), 
we  know  that  faith  has  to  do  with  the  heart  as  well  as 
the  intellect. 

I have  referred  to  Christ  as  the  object  of  faith ; and  as 
illustrative  of  this  point  there  is  one  passage  of  Scripture 
worthy  of  special  consideration : “ Testifying  both  to  the 
Jews,  and  also  to  the  Greeksffrepentance  toward  God,  and 
faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  Acts  xx.  21.  The 


272 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


terms  “ repentance  ” and  “ faith  ” are  just  where  they 
should  be.  Repentance  is  toward  God — that  is,  it  has 
reference  to  God  as  a Lawgiver  whose  law  has  been 
broken;  but  faith  is  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — that 
is,  it  has  reference  to  him  as  the  Saviour.  The  reason  is 
obvious : Christ  by  his  obedience  and  death  has  satisfied 
the  claims  of  the  law,  so  that  the  Lawgiver  can  consist- 
ently pardon  sinners  who  by  faith  receive  Christ  as  the 
Saviour.  Indeed,  it  is  God  the  Lawgiver  who  offers  his 
Son  to  guilty  men  as  the  only  Saviour,  and  faith  is  the 
heart’s  response  to  that  offer.  In  other  words,  the  be- 
liever accepts  the  offer,  accepts  Christ,  who  is  made  to 
him  “ wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and 
redemption.”  1 Cor.  i.  30. 

In  ascertaining  the  exact  import  of  faith  in  Christ,  it 
is  well  to  remember  that  the  word  commonly  translated 
u believe  ” in  the  New  Testament  is,  in  several  passages, 
rendered  “ commit.”  (See  Luke  xvi.  11 ; John  ii.  24;  Rom. 
iii.  2;  1 Cor.  ix.  17;  Gal.  ii.  7 ; 1 Tim.  i.  11;  Tit.  i.  3.) 
Everybody  knows  the  meaning  of  commit , and  those  who 
believe  in  Christ  commit  themselves  to  him  to  be  saved 
by  him — commit  all  the  interests  of  their  salvation  into 
his  hands.  There  is  nothing  kept  back  ; the  surrender  to 
Christ  is  unconditional  and  entire.  As  in  the  gospel  he 
is  offered  as  the  only  Saviour,  he  is  received  as  he  is  of- 
fered, and  relied  on  as  the  only  Saviour.  When  Paul  in 
1 Thess.  ii.  4 says,  “ But  as  we  were  allowed  of  God  to  be 
put  in  trust  with  the  gospel,”  he  uses  the  same  verb,  in 
the  passive  voice,  which  is  usually  translated  “believe.” 
Paul  was  put  in  trust  with  the  gospel — that  is,  the  gospel 
was  entrusted  to  him  ; so  Christ  is  put  in  trust  with  the 
salvation  of  the  believer — that  is,  the  believer  trusts  in 
him.  I know  of  no  word  in  our  language  which  ex- 
presses more  fully  than  the  term  “ trust  ” the  centra] 


REGENERATION , REPENTANCE,  FAITH.  278 

idea  of  the  word  “faith.  ’ According  to  the  gospel,  faith 
is  personal  trust  in  a personal  Saviour.  No  act  can  he 
more  personal  than  the  act  of  faith.  It  is  as  personal  as 
dying.  As  every  human  being  dies  for  himself,  so  every 
man  must  believe  for  himself — must  trust  in  Christ  for 
himself.  I know  of  no  better  definition  of  gospel  faith 
than  this:  It  is  a trustful  reception  of  the  Lord  Jesus  as 
*he  only  Saviour. 

When  the  trembling  jailer  said  to  Faul  and  Silas, 
“ What  must  I do  to  be  saved  ?”  they  said,  “ Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  ” Acts 
xvi.  30,  31.  They  gave  the  only  answer  that  could  be 
given  to  the  question.  It  is  faith  in  Christ  that  puts  the 
soul  in  possession  of  the  benefits  of  redemption.  “ To 
him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of 
sins  ” (Acts  x.  43) ; “ He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  h^th 
everlasting  life.”  John  iii.  36. 

As  the  subject  of  Faith  will  be  referred  to  in  connection 
with  Justification,  it  is  not  deemed  necessary  to  dwell  <m 
it  at  greater  length  in  this  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

JUSTIFICATION. 


There  Is  no  doctrine  of  the  gospel  more  important 
than  Justification.  It  must  ever  be  a question  of  intense 
interest,  “How  shall  man  be  just  with  God?”  Various 
answers  have  been  given  to  this  question.  Some  have 
insisted  that  justification  is  of  grace;!  others  have  sup- 
posed it  to  be  of  works ; while  a third  party  have  vir- 
tually attempted  to  commingle  grace  and  works  in  a 
sinner’s  restoration  to  the  favor  of  God.  The  adoption 
of  correct  views  on  this  subject  is  highly  necessary,  not 
only  on  account  of  the  importance  of  justification  itself, 
but  on  account  of  the  relation  it  bears  to  the  other  doc- 
trines of  Christianity.  For  it  is  obvious  that  our  views 
of  other  doctrines  will  be  influenced  by  the  conclusions 
to  which  we  come  in  regard  to  the  way  of  acceptance 
with  God. 

But  it  is  time  to  approach  the  question,  What  is  justifi- 
cation ? Let  a Roman  Catholic  answer ; and,  availing 
himself  of  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  he  will 
say  that  “justification  is  not  only  the  remission  of  sin, 
but  also  sanctification  and  the  renovation  of  the  inward 
man.”  This  definition  is  plainly  incorrect,  for  if  it  does 
not  identify  justification  with  regeneration  and  sanctifica- 
tion, it  is  so  explained  as  to  include  both.  These  three 
acts,  though  connected  together,  are  distinguishable,  and 

274 

V 


JUSTIFICATION. 


275 


should  never  be  confounded.  There  is  no  passage  of 
Scripture  which  teaches  that  justification  consists,  either 
in  whole  or  in  part,  in  renewing  the  heart  and  making 
it  holy.  Justification  never  has  this  signification,  in  the 
Bible  or  out  of  it.  It  never  means  to  renovate,  it  never 
means  to  make  holy  ; it  does  not  even  signify  to  make  just) 
though  the  etymology  of  the  word  may  suggest  such  a 
definition.  Let  us  illustrate  this  point  as  follows  : There 
was  a custom  among  the  ancients,  as  Ovid  and  others 
inform  us,  of  this  kind  : When  a person  was  charged 
with  crime  he  was  arraigned  before  judges,  who,  after 
considering  all  the  testimony  in  the  case,  proceeded  to  pro- 
nounce judgment  by  depositing  small  stones  in  an  urn. 
If,  in  their  opinion,  the  accused  was  guilty,  they  put  black 
stones  into  the  urn;  but  if  they  regarded  him  innocent, 
they  deposited  white  stones.  Thus  the  black  stones  were 
symbols  of  condemnation,  and  the  white  ones  symbols 
of  justification  or  innocence.  Now,  it  is  plain  that  the 
ceremony  of  putting  white  pebbles  into  an  urn  did  not 
make  the  accused  individual  either  just  or  innocent,  but 
it  formally  declared  him  just  and  rnTTocen't  It  was  a 
judicial  announcement  of  acquittal.  If,  then,  justification 
is,  by  universal  consent,  a forensic  term,  we  are  author- 
ized to  say  that  it  is  the  act  of  declaring  or  accounting  a 
person  just  or  righteous.  In  the  evangelical  use  of  the 
word,  it  is  the  act  of  God  wherein  he  declares  or  accounts 
us  just  or  righteous.  This  act  involves  a change  of  state,, 
not  of  heart.  The  j ustified  “stand  in  a new  relation,^ 
the  divine  law.  'They'  are  treated  as  if  they  had  not 
broken  it.  Its  thunders,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned, 
are  hushed  into  eternal  silence. 

In  the  Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New,  the  terms  “ condemn”  and  u justify  ” are  used  as  oppo- 
site to  each  other.  Thus  Solomon  says,  “ He  that  justifieth 


276 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


the  wicked,  and  he  that  condemneth  the  just,  even  they 
both  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord.”  Prov.  xvii.  15. 
Paul  declares,  “ It  is  God  that  justifieth,”  and  asks,  “Who 
is  he  that  condemneth?”  Rom.  viii.  33,  34.  Here  the 
momentous  question  presents  itself:  How  is  a sinner 
justified  before  God?  Is  it  by  works  or  by  grace?  If, 
as  the  Bible  teaches,  “ all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of 
the  glory  of  God  ” (Rom.  iii.  23),  there  can  be  no  satisfac 
tory  argument  in  favor  of  justification  by  works.  The 
law  of  God  demands  perfect  obedience.  There  must  be 
compliance  with  all  its  requisitions.  There  must  be  no 
imperfection  in  the  obedience  rendered.  There  must  be 
continuity  of  obedience  till  the  period  of  probation 
closes.  If  any  man  can  be  found  to  whose  obedience  the 
epithet  perfect  can  be  applied,  he  may  lay  claim  to  justi- 
fication by  works.  I may  go  further  and  say,  that  the 
divine  law  will  allow  the  validity  of  the  claim.  The  law 
interposes  no  obstacle  to  the  justification  of  the  perfectly 
obedient  man.  Its  language  is,  “ This  do  ” — obey  per- 
fectly— “and  thou  shalt  live.”  But  wThere  shall  such  a 
man  be  found?  What  nation  can  produce  him?  In 
what  clime  does  he  live  ? To  these  questions  we  need 
not  wait  for  affirmative  answers,  for  they  cannot  be  given. 
When  God  looked  down  from  heaven  “to  see  if  there 
were  any  that  did  understand  and  seek  God,”  he  reported 
the  result  of  his  world-wide  observation  in  these  words : 
“There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one.”  Ps.  xiv.  2,  3; 
Rom.  iii.  10.  The  Gentiles  were  addicted  to  the  most 
degrading  superstitions.  Their  idolatries  were  multiplied 
and  multiform.  Every  nation  worshipped  its  own  gods, 
and  forgot  the  God  of  heaven.  Such  was  the  condition 
of  the  Gentiles;  and  the  Jews  were  trampling  the  author- 
ity of  Jehovah  under  their  feet.  They  were  rebelling 
against  him,  in  defiance  of  the  thunders  of  Sinai.  All 


JUSTIFICATION . 


277 


had  gone  out  of  the  way — all,  Jew?  and  Gentiles,  had 
become  unprofitable. 

“ Now  we  know,”  says  Paul,  “ that  what  things  soever 
the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  who  are  under  the  law* 
that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may 
become  guilty  before  God.”  Rom.  iii.  19.  This  is  the 
condition  of  the  children  of  men.  Need  it  be  said  that 
they  are  exposed  to  the  penalt}^  of  the  law  they  have 
transgressed?  If  so,  how  can  they  be  justified  by  the 
works  of  the  law?  The  law  condemns;  can  it  also  jus- 
tify? Can  it  perform  two  incompatible  operations? 
Surely  not.  Its  province  is  to  condemn  the  transgressor ; 
it  cannot,  therefore,  justify  him.  Again  and  again  the 
Scripture  says,  “ By  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no 
flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight.”  ver.  20.  The  truth  of  this 
declaration  may  be  shown  in  the  clearest  manner.  Let 
us  see : The  possibility  of  a sinner’s  justification  by  works 
of  law — if  such  possibility  exists — must  arise  from  ability 
to  atone  for  past  sins  by  present  or  future  obedience.  In 
this  statement,  is  included  every  conceivable  theory  of 
justification  by  works,  for  every  such  theory  recognizes 
the  ability  referred  to.  But  does  the  ability  exist?  It 
does  not.  Two  considerations  will  make  this  plain : 
First , no  man  can  do  more  than  his  duty.  Secondly , no 
act  of  man  can  have  a retrospective  bearing,  and  thereby 
change  the  past. 

What  says  the  first  and  great  commandment  of  the 
law  ? — “ Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and 
with  all  thy  strength.”  Mark  xii.  30.  So  far  as  the 
present  argument  is  concerned,  it  is  a matter  of  no  con- 
sequence what  may  be  the  measure  of  man’s  strength. 
Angels  no  doubt  excel^  him  in  strength.  The  fact  in 
which  we  are  now  interested  is  that  man  is  under  obliga- 

24 


278 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


tion  to  exercise  all  his  strength,  to  employ  all  his  ability* 
in  the  love  and  service  of  God.  How,  then,  can  he  do 
more  than  his  duty  ? Let  the  love  and  the  service  con- 
tinue till  death,  still  they  would  come  strictly  within  the 
limits  of  duty.  How  manifest,  then,  that  there  can  be  no 
present  or  future  superfluous  obedience  to  make  up  for 
past  failures ! Past  sins  cannot  be  atoned  for  by  present  or 
future  performances.  This  results  inevitably  from  man’s 
inability  to  do  at  any  moment  more  than  his  duty. 

That  no  act  of  man  can  have  a retrospective  bearing,  and 
thereby  change  the  past,  results  from  man’s  inability  to 
do  more  than  his  duty.  It  is,  therefore,  needless  to  dwell 
on  this  point.  It  is  as  clear  as  the  light  of  day  that  “ by 
the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified.” 
Rom.  iii.  20. 

But  it  is  proper  to  consider  another  aspect  of  the  case . 
Some  theologians  have,  either  intentionally  or  otherwise, 
so  expressed  themselves  as  to  justify  the  inference  that, 
in  their  judgment,  repentance  is  the  basis  of  a sinner’s 
acceptance  with  God.  They  disconnect  repentance  from 
the  works  of  the  law,  and  hence  admit  that  legal  justifi- 
cation is  impossible.  Let  us  notice  this  theory  of  repent- 
ance: To  say  that  repentance  can  atone  for  sin  is  absurd, 
because  there  would  be  no  repentance  independent" oFThe 
atonement  of  Christ.  I assume,  without  argument,  that 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  instrumentality  of 
the  truths  of  the  gospel  are  involved  in  the  production  of 
r spentance.  But  this  agency  and  this  instrumentality  are 
both  secured  by  the  mediatorial  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
Irrespective  of  his  atonement,  therefore,  there  would  be 
no  repentance,  for  there  would  be  an  entire  absence  of  the 
agency  and  the  means  necessary  to  its  exercise.  It  fol- 
lows that  the  reasoning  which  assumes  that  repentance  ia 
a kind  of  atoning  expedient  is  false,  for  repentance  in 


JUSTIFICATION. 


279 


every  instance  results  from  influences  which  proceed  from 
the  atoning  work  of  Christ.  This  fact  shows,  too,  that  the 
supposed  necessity  of  ascribing  to  repentance  anything 
like  atoning  merit  is  entirely  superseded. 

But,  again,  if  repentance  could  be  exercised  without 
respect  to  Christ’s  work  of  mediation,  it  would  possess  mo 
saving  efficacy.  Repentance  is  not  atonement.  Repara- 
tion of  injury  is  not  its  province.  Common  sense  and 
common  law  teach  this.  Let  a man  throw  himself  from 
a house  and  break  an  arm  or  a leg,  and  though  he  may 
repent  bitterly  of  his  reckless  folly,  it  does  not  repair  the 
injury.  Let  the  murderer  plunge  the  bloodthirsty  dagger 
into  his  neighbor’s  heart,  and  then  indulge  the  most  ex- 
cruciating sorrow  for  what  he  has  done.  Does  it  restore 
to  life  the  murdered  man  ? It  does  not,  and  the  execution 
of  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  declarative  of  the  fact  that  it 
does  not.  Now,  if  human  governments  do  not  recognize 
the  principle  that  repentance  atones  for  crime,  why  should 
it  be  supposed  that  the  divine  government  does?  If  the 
principle  belongs  to  the  divine  government,  it  ought  to  be 
incorporated  into  the  constitution  of  every  human  govern- 
ment, for  all  human  governments  approach  perfection  as 
they  become  more  and  more  conformed  to  the  govern- 
ment of  God.  But  the  principle  is  false,  and  receives  no 
sanction  in  heaven  or  on  earth.  We  see,  then,  that  there 
is  no  repentance  disconnected  from  the  atonement  of 
Christ ; and  if  there  were,  it  would  not  possess  the  first 
element  of  expiation.  Here,  then,  wTe  may  dismiss  the 
consideration  of  the  topic. 

The  question  returns,  How  is  a sinner  justified  before 
God  ? I answer,  in  the  language  of  Paul : “ Being  iusti- 
fiecl  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is  in 

1 more,  then,  being  now  justified  by 
his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him 


280 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


u Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every 
one  that  believeth  ” (Rom.  iii.  24;  v.  9;  x.  4);  “For  he 
hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin  ; that 
we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him  ” (2 
Cor.  v.  21)  ; u And  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own 
righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is 
of  God  by  faith.”  Phil.  iii.  9. 

These  are  but  a few  of  the  passages  of  Scripture  which 
teach  the  method  of  a sinner’s  justification  before  God. 
They  direct  our  attention  to  the  interposition  of  Jesus 
Christ  in  man’s  behalf.  He  was  “ made  under  the  law,  to 
redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law.”  Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  He 
“was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was  raised  again 
for  our  justification.”  Rom.  iv.  25.  The  obedience  and 
death  of  Christ  constitute  the  meritorious  basis  of  a sin- 
ner’s justification  before  God.  They  constitute  such  a 
basis,  because  they  answer  the  demands  of  the  divine  law. 
Nor  was  there  a relaxation  of  the  demands  of  the  law 
when  Jesus  engaged  in  the  work  of  mediation.  An  abate- 
ment of  its  claims  would  not  have  comported  with  the 
perfection  of  the  Lawgiver.  The  law,  retaining  its  un- 
alterable strictness  and  its  immaculate  purity,  must  be 
magnified  and  made  honorable.  Its  rectitude  must  be 
maintained,  its  majesty  vindicated ; and  there  must  be 
established  a medium  through  which  justifying  mercy 
can  be  consistently  extended  to  the  guilty  and  the  con- 
demned. All  this  was  done  by  the  obedience  and  death 
of  Christ.  It  was  so  done  that  “ Christ  is  the  end  of  the 
law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth.”  Rom. 
x.  4.  It  was  so  done  that  God  can  be  “just,  and  the  jus- 
tifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus.”  Rom.  iii.  26. 

The  obedience  of  Christ,  Tiis  obedience  unto  death,  is 
usually  termed  his  righteousness.  This  righteousness 


JUSTIFICATION. 


281 


must  be  imputed  to  sinners,  in  order  to  their  justification. 
“ Imputed  righteousness  ” is  a phrase  to  which  many  ob- 
ject. It  must  be  admitted  that  many  absurd  things  have 
been  said  and  written  on  the  subject  of  imputation,  but 
Christ  has  consecrated  the  principle,  and  the  doctrine, 
properly  understood,  is  replete  with  comfort.  While  our 
sins  were  imputed  to  Christ,  and  he  died  for  them  because 
they  were  imputed  to  him,  they  were  not  so  imputed  as 
to  make  him  a sinner ; and  though  his  righteousness  is 
imputed  to  believers,  it  is  not  imputed  in  such  a sense  as 
to  render  them  personally  worthy  of  the  favor  of  God. 
Christ,  having  assumed  our  legal  responsibilities,  was 
treated  as  if  he  had  been  a sinner ; and  we,  having  received 
his  righteousness,  are  treated  as  if  we  were  righteous . He 
was  so  treated  for  our  sakes , because  our  sins  were  charged 
to  his  account,  and  he  “ bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on 
the  tree  ” (1  Pet.  ii.  24) ; we  are  so  treated  for  his  sake , be- 
cause the  robe  of  his  righteousness  adorns  us.  None  who 
have  examined  the  subject  will  say  that  either  sin  or  right- 
eousness is  transferable,  except  in  its  effects.  A transfer- 
ence of  character,  of  moral  qualities,  is  plainly  impossible. 
Christ  died,  the  just  for  the  unjust.  Surely,  the  moral  cha- 
racter of  those  for  whom  he  died  was  not  transferred  to 
him ; for,  in  that  case,  he  could  not  have  remained  just, 
nor  could  they  have  remained  unjust.  The  awful  conse- 
quence of  their  guilt — namely,  exposure  to  the  curse  of 
the  law — was  transferred  to  him  ; the  glorious  effect  of  his 
righteousness — namely,  a full  satisfaction  of  the  law’s  de- 
mands— is  transferred  to  them.  As  moral  qualities  are  not 
susceptible  of  transfer,  as  justification  changes  our  state, 
but  not  our  hearts  I venture  to  say  that  there  is  no  way 
m which  Christ’s  righteousness  can  become  ours,  except 
by  imputation.  It  may  be  and  is  amounted  ours,  and 
God  deals  with  us  accordingly  This  I imagine,  is  the 

24  * 


282 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


correct  view  of  imputation,  and  it  may  be  illustrated  by 
reference  to  the  Epistle  to  Philemon.  Paul,  in  writing  of 
Onesimus,  says,  “ If  he  hath  wronged  thee,  or  oweth  thee 
anything,  put  that  on  my  account” — literally,  “charge 
that  to  me.”  ver.  18.  The  apostle  uses  the  same  word  when 
he  says,  “ Sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law.”  Rom. 
v.  13.  Christ’s  righteousness  is  put  to  the  account  of  those 
who  believe  in  him.  It  is  accounted  or  imputed  to  them. 
They  are  reckoned  as  righteous  for  Christ’s  sake.  Pie  is 
made  to  them  righteousness.  They  are  justified  by  his 
obedience  unto  death,  accepted  in  the  Beloved,  and  ex- 
perience the  blessedness  referred  to  in  Rom.  iv.  6-8: 
“ Even  as  David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the 
man  to  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works, 
saying,  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and 
whose  sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the 
Lord  will  not  impute  sin.” 

The  period  at  which  justification  takes  place,  and  the 
means  by  which  it  is  effected,  may  now  be  considered. 
Some  have  advocated  the  doctrine  of  eternal  justification. 
They  say  that  “God  from  eternity  purposed  to  justify 
sinners  through  the  obedience  and  death  of  his  Son.”  I 
gladly  concede  the  fact,  but  what  then  ? Surely,  a pur- 
pose is  one  thing,  and  its  execution  another.  Men  are 
not  accustomed  to  confound  a design  with  its  accomplish- 
ment. I see  not  why  eternal  regeneration,  or  eternal 
adoption,  or  eternal  sanctification  may  not  be  as  consist- 
ently advocated  as  eternal  justification.  The  purpose  of 
God  will  furnish  as  plausible  arguments  in  the  one  case 
as  in  the  other;  that  is  to  say,  it  will  furnish  no  argu- 
ments at  all.  Justification,  according  to  the  teaching  of 
the  Scriptures,  always  implies  previous  condemnation. 
If,  then,  justification  dates  back  from  eternity,  shall  we 
eay  that  condemnation  was  antecedent  to  eternity  ? This 


JUSTIFICATION. 


283 


would  be  absurd,  and  the  doctrine  of  eternal  justification 
is  replete  with  absurdity.  I therefore  dismiss  it  as  un- 
worthy of  further  consideration. 

The  position  which  we  may  unhesitatingly  assume  is 
that  sinners  are  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  are  there- 
fore justified  when  they  believe  on  him.  That  this  posi- 
tion can  be  maintained  is  manifest  from  the  following 
portions  of  the  word  of  God  : “ He  that  believeth  on  him 
is  not  condemned:  but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name  of  the 
only-begotten  Son  of  God”  (John  iii.  18);  “And  by  him 
all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things,  from  which 
ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses  ” (Acts  xiii. 
39);  “Therefore  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace 
with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ”  (Rom.  v.  1) ; 
“With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness” 
(Rom.  x.  10) ; “ For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith  ; 
and  that  not  of  yourselves:  it  is  the  gift  of  God.”  Eph. 
ii.  8. 

These  passages  are  very  explicit,  and  they  conclusively 
prove  that  faith  in  Christ  is  the  hinge  on  which  turns  a 
sinner’s  justification.  Nor  is  the  method  of  justification 
by  faith  liable  to  the  charge  of  novelty.  It  is  as  old  as 
the  patriarchal  age.  Paul  argues  that  Abraham  was  jus- 
tified by  faith.  The  Jews  supposed  that  circumcision  had 
much  to  do  in  the  matter,  but  the  apostle  shows  that  he 
was  justified  before  he  was  circumcised,  and  that  his  cir- 
cumcision was  “ a seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised.”  Rom.  iv.  11. 
Paul  refers  to  Abraham’s  justification  before  God,  which 
was  by  faith.  The  apostle  James  refers  to  this  faith  a? 
developed  in  works,  and  very  naturally  mentions  the  of- 
fering of  Isaac  on  the  altar.  Abraham’s  justification  by 
faith  was  a private  transaction  between  God  and  his  own 


284 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


bouI,  and  was  therefore  unknown  to  the  world ; but  when 
he  offered  his  son,  his  faith,  by  which  he  had  been  previ- 
ously justified  before  God,  exhibited  its  vitality  and  pow- 
er. The  world  saw  it,  and  all  succeeding  generations 
have  conceded  its  genuineness  and  admired  its  strength. 
The  faith  to  which  Paul  referred  contained  in  it  the  germ 
of  universal  obedience;  Janies  referred  to  the  same  faith 
as  manifested  in  a remarkable  act  of  obedience.  Thus, 
taking  into  account  the  different  objects  which  the  two 
apostles  had  in  view  in  calling  attention  to  different 
parts  of  Abraham’s  history,  we  shall  see  that  there  is 
no  conflict  between  their  statements. 

We  are  not  to  suppose  that  there  is  anything  meritori- 
ous in  faith,  because  the  justification  of  the  believer  is  as- 
cribed to  its  instrumentality.  It  is  our  duty  to  believe 
in  Christ,  for  we  are  commanded  to  do  so.  But  there  is 
no  merit  in  the  performance  of  duty.  When  we  have 
done  all  that  is  required  of  us,  we  are  taught  by  the  Sa- 
viour to  say  of  ourselves,  “ We  are  unprofitable  servants ; 
we  have  done  that  which  was  our  duty  to  do.”  Luke  xvii. 
10.  Faith,  then,  being  a duty,  the  principle  which  Christ 
has  established  divests  it  of  the  merit  which  some  would 
vainly  attempt  to  attach  to  it.  We  are  justified  by  faith, 
not  for  faith.  There  is  in  faith  nothing  for  the  sake  of 
which  we  can  be  justified.  Whatever  justifies  must 
meet  the  demands  of  the  law.  This,  faith  cannot  do. 
Lov  e,  hope,  zeal,  humility,  and  other  graces  of  the  Spirit 
are  as  competent  to  do  this  as  faith.  They  are  all  incom- 
petent. Why,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  justification  spoken 
of  by  the  sacred  writers  in  connection  with  faith,  rather 
than  with  other  Christian  graces?  I answer,  Because  it 
is  emphatically  the  province  of  faith  to  receive  Christ 
God  in  the  gospel  offers  his  Son  as  the  Saviour  of  sin- 
ners. Faith  is  the  believer’s  act  of  acceptance,  for  it  in 


JUSTIFICATION. 


285 


a state  of  heart  responsive  to  God’s  proposal.  It  takes 
him  at  his  word  and  welcomes  a gratuitous  salvation. 
There  is  no  more  merit  in  it  than  in  a beggar’s  reception 
of  alms.  The  essential  elements  of  justifying  faith  are  to 
be  found  in  a cordial  reception  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  an 
unreserved  reliance  on  his  righteousness.  When  faith  is 
said  to  be  £t  counted  for  righteousness  ” it  is  so  counted 
objectively ; that  is,  it  is  so  regarded  in  reference  to  its 
object,  the  atoning  Mediator.  Hence  Abraham’s  faith, 
which  was  “ counted  to  him  for  righteousness,”  embraced 
the  promised  Messiah.  The  blessings  of  salvation  flow, 
not  from  faith,  but  from  the  object  of  faith.  Irrespective 
of  its  reference  to  Christ  faith  could  avail  nothing.  This 
may  be  illustrated  by  a New  Testament  incident.  Not  to 
detail  all  the  particulars  of  this  incident,  it  is  sufficient 
to  say,  that  Jesus  on  a certain  occasion  said  to  a blind 
man,  “ What  wilt  thou  that  I should  do  unto  thee?  The 
blind  man  said  unto  him,  Lord,  that  I might  receive  my 
sight.  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Go  thy  way;  thy  faith 
hath  made  thee  whole.”  Mark  x.  51,  52. 

It  is  evident  that  the  blind  man’s  faith  possessed  no 
power  to  restore  his  sight.  The  restoring  virtue  pro- 
ceeded from  Christ  through  faith.  Thus  it  is  in  the  jus- 
tification of  a sinner  before  God.  The  justification  is  by 
faith  instrumentally ; it  is  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
meritoriously.  Faith  is  the  instrument  of  justification, 
because  it  receives  Christ,  and  for  no  other  reason.  We 
are  “ accepted  in  the  Beloved  ” (Eph.  i.  6),  and  we  must 
be  “ in  the  Beloved  ” before  we  can  be  accepted  in  him 
or  for  his  sake.  Faith  is  the  means  of  bringing  us  into 
union  with  Christ.  It  is  the  spiritual  ligament  that  binds 
the  soul  to  Christ.  When  united  to  the  Saviour  by  faith, 
God  accepts  us.  We  are  reinstated  in  his  favor.  We  are 
justified ; not  pardoned  merely,  but  justified.  There  ia 


286 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


a gracious  remission  of  sins,  while,  at  the  same  time,  a 
title  to  everlasting  life  is  conferred  Faith  has  been 
termed — and  very  properly  too — “the  appropriating 
grace,”  for  by  it  we  appropriate  to  the  purposes  of  our 
personal  salvation  the  benefits  of  the  atonement  of 
Christ.  Prominent  among  these  benefits  is  justification, 
“Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  redernp- 
ion  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.”  Rom.  iii.  24. 

This  method  of  justification  furnishes  a bright  display 
of  the  grace  of  God;  and  faith,  as  the  means  of  justifica- 
tion, is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  wondrous  plan.  Paul 
therefore  says,  “ It  is  of  faith  that  it  may  be  by  grace.” 
Rom.  iv.  16.  So  far  is  faith  from  being  a work  for  the 
sake  of  which  we  are  justified,  it  is,  in  the  evangelical 
scheme,  perfectly  adjusted  to  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
grace.  It  is  even  spoken  of  in  contrast  with  wTorks : “If 
Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath  whereof  to 
glory,  but  not  before  God.  For  what  saith  the  scripture? 
Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for 
righteousness.  Now  to  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward 
reckoned,  not  of  grace,  but  of  debt.  But  to  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  . justifieth  the 
ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness.”  Rom. 
iv.  2-5. 

Here  working  and  believing  are  referred  to  as  oppo- 
site, while  working  not  and  believing  are  represented  as  in 
perfect  harmony.  He  who  “works”  with  a view  to  jus- 
tify himself  by  his  own  deeds  cannot  believe,  cannot  re- 
ceive Christ.  He  who  does  not  “ work  ” with  a view  to  a 
legal  justification  is  prepared  to  believe  in  Christ,  and 
thereby  obtain  evangelical  justification.  Grace  and  faith 
go  together.  Grace  gives,  and  faith  receives ; and  as  there 
is  no  merit  in  receiving,  justification  by  faith  excludes 
boasting.  Grace  and  faith  are  perfectly  harmonious  in 


JUSTIFICATION. 


287 


their  operations  ; for  justification  by  faith  pre-eminently 
illustrates  the  fact,  that  “ grace  reigns  through  righteous- 
ness unto  eternal  life  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.”  Rom. 
v.  21. 

“ It  is  God  that  justifieth.”  Rom.  viii.  33.  This  is  Je- 
hovah’s prerogative,  for  guilt  and  condemnation  are  in- 
curred by  a violation  of  his  law.  Whether  that  guilt  and 
condemnation  shall  be  removed,  he  must  decide.  He  has 
graciously  determined  to  justify  those  who  believe  on 
Jesus  Christ.  As  man  believes  with  the  heart  unto  right- 
eousness, as  faith  has  to  do  with  the  heart,  it  is  morally 
certain  that  no  “ priest  ” or  “ minister,”  whether  Romish 
or  Protestant,  can  come  between  God  and  the  soul  in 
the  great  matter  of  justification.  The  doctrine  of  “ sac- 
ramental efficacy  ” cannot  be  tolerated  here.  No  bodily- 
act  can  be  called  into  requisition.  The  transaction  is  be- 
tween God  and  the  soul  of  man.  There  is  no  room  for 
human  mediators.  Faith  embraces  the  one  Mediator, 
Christ  Jesus;  and  God  justifies  for  his  sake.  In  the 
act  of  believing,  the  sinner  is  justified.  He  passes  from 
condemnation  to  a state  of  acceptance  with  God. 

The  plan  of  justification  by  faith  is  wisely  and  graciously 
adapted  to  meet  most  effectually  the  necessities  of  our 
fallen  race.  If  salvation  depended  on  “priestly  absolu- 
tion,” and  the  priest  should  refuse  to  say,  “I  absolve 
thee,”  his  refusal  would  be  the  precursor  of  damnation. 
If  justification  was  inseparable  from  baptism,  and  it  was 
physically  impossible  to  be  baptized,  then  the  soul  must 
be  lost.  If  church  membership  was  indispensable  to  sal- 
vation, then  the  members  composing  a church  would 
have  it  in  their  power  to  say  whether  the  applicant  for 
membership  should  be  saved  or  lost.  If  partaking  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper  was  essential  to  justification,  then  without 
eating  bread  and  drinking  wine  at  his  table  there  could 


288 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


be  no  restoration  to  the  favor  of  God.  In  view  of  these 
considerations,  the  method  of  justification  by  faith  is 
surely  a wise  and  gracious  one.  According  to  this  meth- 
od, justification  has  no  connection  with  “priestly  abso- 
lution;” it  precedes  baptism,  church  membership,  an 
observance  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  and  is  not,  therefore, 
dependent  on  any  one  of  these  things,  nor  on  all  of  them 
combined.  The  unjustified  have  nothing  to  do  with 
church  ordinances  or  church  membership. 

It  is  proper  to  notice,  in  the  close  of  this  chapter,  an 
objection  which  has  been  often  urged  against  the  views 
now  presented.  The  substance  of  the  objection  is,  that 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  grace  through  faith  is 
injurious  to  the  interests  of  holiness.  That  the  objec- 
tion is  not  valid  will  appear  if  we  consider  the  follow- 
inf;  points: 

The  death  of  Christ,  which  with  his  obedience  is  the 
meritorious  basis  of  a sinner’s  justification,  furnishes  the 
universe  with  a most  impressive  exhibition  of  the  evil  of 
sin.  Indeed,  an  exhibition  equally  affecting  and  appalling 
is  vainly  looked  for  away  from  the  cross.  It  cannot  be 
seen  in  any  of  the  consequences  of  sin,  so  far  as  either 
fallen  men  or  fallen  angels  are  concerned.  It  cannot  be 
seen  on  earth  or  in  hell.  Now,  if  God’s  method  of  justi- 
fication shows  the  odiousness  of  sin,  and  by  consequence 
the  beauty  of  holiness,  then  it  is  as  unreasonable  as  it  is 
unscriptural  to  insist  that  his  plan  of  restoring  lost  sin- 
ners to  his  favor  is  in  any  respect  injurious  to  the  interests 
of  holiness.  It  is  a blessed  truth,  that  justification  pre- 
supposes the  pardon  of  sin,  but,  strange  as  it  may  appear 
to  the  carnal  mind,  God  shows  his  hatred  of  sin  in  for- 
giving it.  The  reason  is,  sin  is  invariably  pardoned 
through  the  death  of  Christ.  How,  then,  can  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  grace  through  faith  operate  in- 


JUSTIFICATION. 


289 


juriously  on  the  interests  of  holiness?  It  is  morally 
impossible. 

Again,  those  who  are  justified  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ 
are  said  by  the  apostle  Paul  to  be  “ dead  to  sin,”  and  he 
inquires  with  indignant  eloquence,  “ How  shall  we  that 
are  dead  to  sin,  live*  any  longer  therein?”  Rom.  vi.  2. 
In  his  view,  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  grace,  so  far 
from  giving  countenance  to  sin,  emphatically  condemns 
it,  and  eminently  promotes  the  interests  of  holiness. 
There  is  evidently  a moral  absurdity  in  supposing  that 
those  who  are  dead  to  sin  will  live  any  longer  therein. 
The  objection  under  review  is  not  valid. 

Once  more : The  faith  to  which  justification  is  ascribed 
is  a living  faith.  It  purifies  the  heart  and  prompts  to 
holiness  of  life.  Its  vitality  indicates  itself  in  the  good 
works  to  which  it  prompts.  “ As  the  body  without  the 
spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without  works  is  dead  also.”  James 
ii.  26.  We  are  here  plainly  taught,  that  a faith  which  is 
not  productive  of  works  is  as  incompetent  for  purposes 
of  justification  as  is  a corpse  to  perform  the  functions  of 
a living  body.  It  was  often  said  by  the  “ old  theologians,” 
that  “good  works  are  the  fruits  of  faith  and  the  evidences 
of  justification.”  This  is  undoubtedly  true.  Justification 
by  faith  precedes  good  works,  but  the  works  inevitably 
follow.  Now,  if  justifying  faith  prompts  its  possessor 
to  walk  in  the  pathway  of  obedience,  it  cannot  be  that 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  grace  through  faith  is 
inimical  to  the  interests  of  holiness.  Other  arguments 
might  be  employed  to  demolish  the  objection  I have 
been  refuting,  but  it  is  deemed  unnecessary.  I close 
this  chapter  in  the  words  of  some  writer  whose  name 
I cannot  now  remember:  “We  are  justified  by  faith 
alone,  but  not  by  a faith  which  is  alone.” 

25 


CHAPTER  XX. 


ADOPTION. 

While  regeneration  denotes  a change  of  heart,  and 
justification  a change  of  state,  Adoption  seems  to  be  a 
comj^l^x  wjnch  represents  the  believer  as  regene- 

rated and  justified^  So  far  as  this  term  is  expressive  of 
the  feelings  of  God’s  children  toward  him,  it  coincides 
with  regeneration ; and  so  far  as  it  expresses  a relation 
of  acceptance  with  God  through  Christ,  it  is  identical 
with  justification.  Taking  this  view  of  the  matter,  as 
regeneration  and  justification  have  been  discussed  at 
some  length,  I shall  not  elaborate  the  topic  of  adoption. 

It  may  shed  some  light  on  the  subject  to  say,  that 
ancient  nations — Egyptians,  Greeks,  Romans,  and  others 
— were  familiar  with  the  process  of  civil  adoption.  By 
this  process,  children  were  taken  from  families  of  which 
they  were  natural  members,  introduced  into  other  famil- 
ies, and  made  to  sustain  a legal  relation  thereto— a relation 
similar  in  its  results  to  those  of  the  natural  relation.  Such 
children  were  recognized  as  the  children  of  those  who  had 
adopted  them,  and  became  their  heirs.  In  view  of  this 
definition  of  civil  adoption  we  can  easily  see  that  spirit- 
ual adoption  is  the  act  by  which  God  takes  those  who 
were  by  nature  children  of  wrath  in*')  a new  relation 
to  himself — a filial  relation — involving  their  recognition 
and  treatment  as  children.  They  are  distinguished  by 


ADOPTION. 


291 


the  appellation  “ sons  and  daughters  ” of  the  “ Lord 
Almighty.”  (See  2 Cor.  vi.  18.) 

Civil  adoption  and  spiritual  are  in  some  respects  simi- 
lar, in  others  dissimilar.  The  points  of  similarity  are 
such  as  these: 

1.  In  each  kind  of  adoption,  the  child  is  taken  from 
another  family.  The  fact  that  the  child  belongs  to  another 
family  renders  the  adopting  process  necessary.  Sinners, 
we  know,  are  estranged  from  God,  children  of  the  devil, 
members  of  another  family. 

2.  In  each,  the  adopted  child  sustains  a new  relation  to 
the  adopter.  This  relation  is  a filial  one,  which  cannot 
possibly  exist  until  the  adopting  act  is  performed. 

3.  In  each,  the  adopted  becomes  the  heir  of  the  adopter . 
By  the  law  of  nature,  and  by  the  civil  law  too,  the  child 
is  regarded  as  the  heir  of  the  father.  The  adopted  one 
is  in  the  place  of  a child.  Christians,  having  been  adopted 
by  God,  are  his  heirs.  They  inherit  from  him,  and  their 
inheritance  is  incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  unfading. 

But  there  are  points  of  dissimilarity  : 

1.  Civil  adoption,  it  is  supposed,  was  first  permitted 
for  the  benefit  and  comfort  of  the  childless.  There  is  nothing 
like  this  in  spiritual  adoption.  Jehovah  is  not  childless. 
The  angels  are  “the  sons  of  God,”  and  they  constitute 
“ an  innumerable  company.”  These  “ sons  of  God  shouted 
for  joy  ” when  the  omnipotent  Creator  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth.  Job  xxxviii.  7.  ^ 

2.  In  civil  adoption,  something  amiable  and  attractive  in 
the  adopted  excites  the  regard  of  the  adopter.  Hence,  Pha- 
raoh’s daughter  was  charmed  with  the  infant  loveliness  of 
Moses,  had  compassion  on  him,  and  adopted  him  as  her 
son.  We  are  told  also,  that  Mordecai,  because  Esther  was 
“ fair  and  beautiful  ” and  her  parents  were  dead,  “ took 
her  for  his  own  daughter.”  Esth.  ii.  7.  To  instances  like 


292 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


these,  there  is  nothing  similar  in  spiritual  adoption.  In 
the  moral  character  of  those  whom  God  adopts,  there  is 
nothing  attractive,  but  everything  repulsive.  They  are 
his  enemies,  guilty  of  high  treason  against  the  King  of 
glory.  They  bear  the  image  of  Satan,  for  they  are  of 
their  father,  the  devil.  The  wickedness  of  their  lives  is 
only  an  expression  of  the  greater  wickedness  of  their 
hearts.  Surely,  God,  in  adopting  such  creatures  into  his 
family,  is  prompted  by  nothing  good  or  amiable  in  them, 
but  by  his  amazing  and  infinite  love. 

3.  In  civil  adoption,  though  a filial  relation  is  established , 
there  is  not  necessarily  a filial  disposition . Adopted  children 
sometimes  become  moral  monsters  in  human  form.  So 
base  is  their  requital  of  the  kindness  of  their  benefactors, 
as  to  sicken  every  benevolent  heart.  Spiritual  adoption 
is  always  connected  with  a filial  temperament.  It  is 
inseparable  from  regeneration,  by  which  we  are  born  of 
God  and  become  his  children  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Where  the  filial  relation  is  established  the 
filial  affections  are  exercised.  All  whom  God  adopts 
love  him  as  their  gracious  Father. 

The  privileges  of  adoption  claim  attention.  They  are 
many,  and  I name  the  following: 

1.  Unobstructed  access  to  God . The  child  can  approach 
the  father  when  a stranger  would  be  repulsed.  The  son 
can  gain  admittance  when  the  servant  would  ask  a hear- 
ing in  vain.  The  people  of  God  may  draw  near  to  him 
at  all  times.  He  ever  bids  them  welcome.  They  may 
approach  him  with  confidence.  He  invites  them  to 
“ come  boldly  unto  the  throne  of  grace.”  Heb.  iv.  16. 
Paul  says,  u For  ye  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bond- 
age again  to  fear;  but  ye  have  received  the  Spirit  of 
adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father.”  Rom.  viii.  15, 
How  delightful  to  feel  the  sublime  joy  resulting  from 


ADOPTION. 


293 


lellowship  with  God ! How  cheering  is  his  fatherly 
smile f Who  that  has  experienced  the  blessedness  of 
free  access  to  God  as  a Father  would  exchange  it  for  all 
that  “ earth  calls  good  or  great”? 

2.  The  adopted  are  brethren  of  Christ.  “ Having  predesti- 
nated us  unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ 
to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will.” 
Eph.  i.  5.  The  whole  of  the  process  of  spiritual  adoption 
is  through  Christ,  and  the  fatherhood  of  God  is  insepa- 
rable from  brotherhood  in  Christ.  All  the  adopted  can 
claim  the  LoM  Jesus  as  their  Brother.  He  is  said  to  be 
“ the  first-born  among  many  brethren.”  Rom.  viii.  29. 
There  is  a numerous  family,  but  he  is  the  Elder  Brother. 
All  others  are  adopted  for  his  sake.  Nor  is  he  ashamed 
of  the  relation  he  sustains  to  them.  “ For  both  he  that 
sanctifieth  and  they  who  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one;  for 
wfich  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren.” 
Heb.  ii.  11.  What  an  honor  is  this ! To  claim  Christ, 
not  only  as  a Friend,  but  as  a Brother,  and  to  know  that 
this  fraternal  relation  is  cemented  and  sanctified  by  the 
blood  of  the  cross  ! 

3.  They  enjoy  the  Spirit  of  adoption.  We  are  told,  that 
“ God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a woman,  made  under 
the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that 
we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons.  And  because  ye 
are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  ffis  Son  into 
}our  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father.”  Gal.  iv.  4-6.  The 
Spirit  is  a Comforter.  He  comforts  the  adopted  by  bear- 
ing testimony  to  their  adoption.  We  therefore  read  in 
Rom.  viii.  16  as  follows : “ The  Spirit  itself  beareth  wit- 
ness with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.” 
He  enables  us  to  appropriate  the  promises  made  to  the 
adopted.  When  we  are  conscious  that  we  possess  the 
evidences  of  adoption  oui  spirits  also  bear  witness. 

25  * 


294 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


There  is  concurrent  testimony,  for  the  Spirit  of  God 
bears  witness  with  our  spirit.  To  enjoy  the  Spirit  of 
adoption  is  an  inestimable  privilege.  This  Spirit  cries — 
that  is,  prompts  the  adopted  to  cry — “Abba,  Father.” 
They  claim  relationship  with  God.  The  beloved  disciple 
therefore  says,  “ Behold,  what  manner  of  love  the  Father 
hath  bestowed  upon  us,  that  we  should  be  called  the 
sons  of  God:  therefore  the  world  knoweth  us  not,  be- 
cause it  knew  him  not.  Beloved,  now  are  we  the  sons 
of  Gol,  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be:  but 
we  know  that,  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like 
him;  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is.”  1 John  iii.  1,  2. 
How  great  the  honor  for  Christians,  while  in  this  world  of 
sin  and  sorrow,  to  enjoy  the  blessed  consciousness  that 
they  are  the  children  of  God,  with  all  the  high  possibili- 
ties of  glory  before  them ! 

4.  They  are  the  objects  of  divine  care  and  protection . A 
kind  earthly  father  provides,  according  to  his  ability, 
what  is  needful  for  his  children,  and  “ like  as  a father 
pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear 
him.”  Ps.  ciii.  13.  David,  remembering  his  shepherd-life 
and  his  care  of  the  flocks  committed  to  his  charge,  said, 
“ The  Lord  is  my  Shepherd ; I shall  not  want.  He  mak- 
eth  me  to  lie  down  in  green  pastures:  he  leadeth  me  be- 
side the  still  waters.”  Ps.  xxiii.  1,  2.  The  Psalmist,  it  is 
true,  speakS^here  for  himself,  but  elsewhere  he  uses  lan- 
guage so  general  as  to  include  all  who  love  and  serve  God  • 
“ For  the 'Lord  God  is  a sun  and  shield:  the  Lord  will  give 
grace  and  glory:  no  good  thing  will  he  withhold  from  them 
that  walk  uprightly.”  Ps.  lxxxiv.  11.  Paul  said  to  the 
Philippian  church,  “But  my  God  shall  supply  all  your 
need  according  to  his  riches  in  glory  by  Christ  Jesus.” 
Phil.  iv.  19.  He  also  said  to  the  Romans,  “ And  we  know 
that  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love 


ADOPTION ; 


295 


God,  to  them  who  are  the  called  according  to  his  pur- 
pose.” Rom.  viii.  28.  If  God,  who  has  “ all  things  ” un- 
der his  control,  makes  all  things  work  together  for  good 
to  his  people,  what  more  can  they  ask  or  desire?  Surely, 
they  may  rejoice  in  his  care  and  protection. 

5.  They  are  chastened  in  love,  for  their  spiritual  good . Some 
may  think  it  strange  that  I include  paternal  chastening 
among  the  privileges  of  adoption,  but  it  cannot  be  im- 
proper to  do  so  when  we  are  told  that  our  h.eavenlv 
Father  chastens  us  “ for  our  profit,  that  we  might  be 
partakers  of  his  holiness.”  Heb.  xii.  10.  Earthly  fathers, 
owing  to  their  imperfection,  often  make  mistakes  in  the 
infliction  of  chastisement.  They  are  prompted,  it  may 
be,  by  passion  or  controlled  by  caprice,  and  they  may 
have  unworthy  ends  in  view.  God  is  infinitely  perfect 
and  infinitely  wise.  The  motives  which  prompt  his  ac- 
tion are  worthy  of  his  nature.  He  doeth  all  things  well. 
We  may  safely  say,  that  because  of  his  great  love  for  his 
people  he  would  never  chasten  them  at  all  if  their  spiritual 
good  did  not  require  it.  “ Whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chas- 
teneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth.”  Heb. 
xii.  6.  Chastening,  then,  is  a proof  of  his  love,  for  he 
has  in  view  the  “ profit  ” of  those  he  chastens.  The  ex- 
pression, “that  we  may  be  partakers  of  his  holiness,” 
contains  a most  precious  truth.  It  indicates  that  the 
chastenings  which  God  inflicts  on  his  peop#  are  promo- 
tive of  their  conformity  to  his  moral  image.  To  partake 
of  his  holiness  is  to  become  holy.  This  is  his  will  con- 
cerning his  people.  He  says,  “But  as  he  which  hath 
called  you  is  holy,  so  be  ye  holy  in  all  manner  of  con- 
versation ; because  it  is  written,  Be  ye  holy ; for  I am 
holy.”  1 Pet.  i.  15,  16.  The  highest  good  of  creatures 
is  to  be  found  in  their  holiness,  in  their  likeness  to  God. 
If,  then,  God  chastens  those  whom  he  adopts  into  his 


296 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


family  that  he  may  make  them  like  himself,  surely  chas- 
tening is  to  be  classed  among  the  privileges  of  adoption. 
The  sanctification  of  su tiering  is  provided  for  in  God’s 
covenant  with  his  adopted  children,  and  they  should, 
therefore,  regard  all  their  afflictions  as  blessings  in  di» 
guise. 

6.  A glorious  inher  itance  is  in  reserve  for  the  adopted . This 
inspiring  truth  is  taught  in  the  following  passages : “ And 
if  children,  then  heirs ; heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ;  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  him,  that  we  may  be 
also  glorified  together  ” (Rom.  viii.  17) ; “ Blessed  be  the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  accord- 
ing to  his  abundant  mercy  hath  begotten  us  again  to  a 
lively  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the 
dead,  to  an  inheritance  incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that 
fadeth  not  away  ” (1  Pet.  i.  3,  4) ; “ He  that  overcometh 
shall  inherit  all  things ; and  I will  be  his  God,  and  he 
shall  be  my  son.”  Rev.  xxi.  7. 

These  precious  Scriptures  give  assurance  to  the  adopted 
of  an  inheritance  so  glorious  that  nothing  more  glorious 
can  be  desired  or  imagined.  Who  can  adequately  con- 
ceive how  much  is  meant  by  the  heavenly  heirship — 
heirship  with  God  and  joint  heirship  with  Christ?  His 
adopted  children  are  to  inherit  from  God,  their  gracious 
Father,  and  they  are  to  inherit  in  connection  with  their 
Elder  Brother,  Christ  Jesus.  They  are  to  inherit  all 
things,  and  their  inheritance  will  be  an  immortal  one. 
It  is  “ incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  fadeth  not  away.” 
This  is  what  Jesus  means  by  “ a treasure  in  the  heavens 
that  faileth  not,  where  no  thief  approacheth,  neither  moth 
' corrupteth.”  Luke  xii.  33.  How  secure  and  how  perma- 
nent! In  the  enjoyment  of  this  heavenly  treasure,  the 
largest  and  highest  aspirations  of  the  saints  will  receive 
full  gratification.  The  expanded  faculties  of  every  re- 


ADOPTION. 


297 


deemed  soul  will  he  filled  to  a blessed  repletion  with 
joy  inexpressible  and  eternal.  God  will  recognize  his 
adopted  ones,  smile  upon  them,  and  permit  them  through 
endless  ages  to  draw  on  his  infinite  resources  for  happi- 
ness. They  will  appear  before  his  throne  in  all  the 
beauty  of  unblemished  purity,  reflecting  the  image  of 
their  Redeemer,  even  as  the  polished  mirror  reflects  the 
image  of  the  noonday  sun.  But  why  enlarge  ? It  will 
require  eternity  to  comprehend  and  eternity  to  enjoy  this 
last  great  privilege  of  adoption — the  possession  of  the 
incorruptible  inherita  ice. 


/ 


CHAPTER  XXT. 

SANCTIFICA  TION. 

The  term  sanctify  is  frequently  used  in  the  Bible. 
Without  attempting  an  exhaustive  examination  of  all  the 
senses  in  which  it  is  employed,  I may  say  that  it  has  two 
prominent  meanings.  As  first  used,  it  signifies  to  set 
apart  for  a special  purpose.  In  proof  of  this,  the  follow- 
ing passages  may  be  quoted : “ And  God  blessed  the 
seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it”  (Gen.  ii.  3);  “Seven  days 
thou  shalt  make  an  atonement  for  the  altar,  and  sanctify 
it;  and  it  shall  be  an  altar  most  holy:  whatsoever  touch- 
eth  the  altar  shall  be  holy  ” (Ex.  xxix.  37)  ; “ And  it  came 
to  pass  on  the  day  that  Moses  had  fully  set  up  the  taber- 
nacle, and  had  anointed  it,  and  sanctified  it,  and  all  the  in- 
struments thereof,  and  had  anointed  them,  and  sanctified 
them,”  etc.  Num.  vii.  1.  Here  we  are  plainly  taught  that 
the  seventh  day  was  distinguished  from  other  days,  set  apart 
and  in  this  &nse  sanctified.  During  a period  of  seven  days 
an  atonement  was  to  be  made  for  the  altar  that  it  might  be 
sanctified,  rendered  ceremonially  holy,  and  thus  set  apart 
for  a special  purpose  in  connection  with  the  Mosaic  econo- 
my. The  atonement  was  ceremonial,  and  the  sanctification 
of  the  altar  was  ceremonial,  and  whatever  touched  the  altar 
was  to  be  holy,  or  sanctified  in  the  sense  of  special  desig- 
nation. Not  only  the  tabernacle,  but  all  its  “instru- 
ments ” and  “ vessels  ” were  to  be  sanctified.  They  were 
208 


SANCTIFICA  TION. 


quq 


oaui 

f~ % 


Banctified  by  being  set  apart  from  common  to  special 
purposes. 

The  other  prominent  meaning  of  sanctify  is  to  make 
holy  morally — that  is,  really.  The  ceremonial  holiness 
of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  a type  of  the  moral  holi- 
ness of  the  Christian  economy.  The  Jews  were  a holy 
people  in  a national  sense ; that  is,  they  were  ceremonially 
separated  from  other  nations,  and  set  apart  as  the  peculiar 
people  of  God.  Many  of  them,  we  doubt  not,  were  saints 
in  reality  as  well  as  in  form,  but  the  great  mass  of  the 
nation  from  age  to  age  exemplified  only  a ritual,  formal 
saintship. 

anctification,  according  to  the  gospel  and  as  the  term 
is  used  in  theology,  is  a precious  reality,  involving  holi- 
ness of  heart,  which  leads  to  holiness  of  life.  It  has  its 
origin  in  regeneration,  for  regeneration  is  the  beginning 
of  holiness  in  the  soul.  1 I concede  that  unregenerate  per- 
sons may  possess  amiable  instincts  and  commendable 
social  qualities,  may  illustrate  what  are  called  natural 
virtues ; but  I say  with  strongest  emphasis  that  there  is 
no  spark  of  holiness  in  any  unregenerate  heart.  Where 
holiness  exists  in  its  most  incipient  form  it  is  a super- 
natural production,  the  effect  of  regeneration.  ^Now,  while 
regeneration  implants  the  germ  of  holiness  in  the  heart, 
sanctification  is  the  unfolding  of  that  germ.  This  being 
the  case,  it  follows  that  regeneration  and  sanctification  are 
essentially  the  same  in  nature,  and  may  be  regarded  as 
two  parts  of  the  moral  process  by  which  depraved  man  is 
restored  to  the  image  of  God.  A reference  to  the  figura- 
tive language  of  the  apostle  Paul  will  shed  some  light  on 
this  point.  He  refers  to  “babes  in  Christ”  (1  Cor.  iii.  1), 
and  also  to  the  “ perfect  man.”  Eph.  iv.  13.  What  are  we 
to  understand  by  these  forms  of  expression?  We  know 
very  well  that  babe  in  its  literal  sense  means  an  infant. 


300 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


and  that  a perfect  man  has  reached  the  maturity  of  de- 
veloped manhood.  “ Bates  in  Christ  ” are  spiritual  in- 
fants ; and  as  birth  by  generation  brings  forth  the  natural 
babe  in  possession  of  all  the  members  of  the  body,  though 
these  members  are  feeble,  so  birth  by  regeneration  brings 
forth  the  spiritual  babe,  possessed  of  all  the  parts  of  the 
“ new  man,”  but  needing  spiritual  diet,  exercise,  strength, 
development.  I In  regeneration,  then,  the  u new  creature  ” 
is  formed,  comes  into  being,  and  exhibits  all  the  condi- 
tions of  a babe,  while  sanctification  nourishes  the  babe 
and  promotes  its  growth  to  spiritual  maturity.  / Sanctifi- 
cation is  therefore  a progressive  work,  going  on  by  degrees 
till  finally  accomplished.  Regeneration  breaks  the  power 


born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin)5  (1  John  iii.  9),  in  the 
sense  of  being  the  slave  thereof,  but  it  does  not  free  the 
soul  from  the  presence  and  the  pollution  of  sin.  Alas ! 
the  regenerate  know  full  well  that  sin  is  in  their  hearts, 
1 that  it  stamps  with  imperfection  whatever  they  do. 


flesh  lusteth  against  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  against  the 
flesh  : and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other : so  that 
ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would.55  Gal.  v.  17.  This 
conflict  implies  the  remains  of  sin  in  the  believer,  while 
the  fact  itself  must  be  taken  into  account  in  any  consist- 
ent interpretation  of  the  much-controverted  passage  in 
Rom.  vii.  14-25.  These  verses  are  true  of  a regenerate 
man  sanctified  in  part,  and  they  are  true  of  no  other 
man.  This,  of  course,  is  not  the  place  for  critical  exposi- 
tion, but  I may  say  the  things  which  follow : 

No  regenerate  man,  pei^ecf{,1y  sanctified,  can  say  in  truth, 
“ For  that  which'I  do,  1 allow  not:  for  what  I would,  that 
do  I not ; but  what  I hate,  that  do  I “ For  the  good  that 


This  accounts  for  the  Christian  warfare,  which  begins in 
regeneration  and  is  carried  on  in  sanctificatiomj 


SANCTIFICATION . 


301 


I would,  I do  not:  but  the  evil  which  I would  not,  that  do 
I ;”  “ But  I see  another  law  in  my  members,  warring  against 
the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to 
the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members;”  “0  wretched 
man  that  I am ! who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of 
this  death?” 

No  unregenerate  man  can  truly  say.  “ I consent  unto 
the  law  that  it  is  good ;”  “ To  will  is  \ resent  with  me ;” 
“ For  I delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward 
man  “ So  then,  with  the  mind  I myself  serve  the  law 
of  God.” 

But  a regenerate  man,  i m pp.rfpp.t1  v sanctified,  can  in 
truth  repeat  all  these  decIafaSBS!1"  Because  he  is  regen- 
erate, and  for  no  other  reason,  he  “ delights  in  the  hw  of 
God  after  the  inward  man ;”  and  because  he  is  sanctified 
only  in  part  there  is  “ another  law  warring  against  the 
law  of  his  mind.”  Paul,  I doubt  not,  referred  to  himself, 
in  the  verses  quoted,  as  an  imperfect  Christian,  struggling 
with  the  remains  of  depravity,  and  seeing  hope  of  tri- 
umph only  in  the  grace  of  God  through  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

Sanctification  implies  the  crucifixion  of  sin.  “For  if  ye 
live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die : but  if  ye  through  the 
Spirit  do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live.” 
Rom.  viii.  13.  To  mortify  is  to  put  to  death,  and  there 
must  be  an  earnest  and  a constant  effort  to  put  sin  to 
death,  to  crucify  it.  The  warfare  against  sin  must  be  im- 
partial. There  must  be  no  favorite  sins.  A war  of  exter- 
mination must  be  waged  against  every  sin.  Temptations 
to  the  commission  of  outward  sins  must  be  resisted,  and 
our  inward  enemies,  the  sins  of  the  heart,  must  be  dragged 
forth  from  their  lurking-places  and  slain  before  the  Lord. 
Sin  is  so  great  an  evil  that  if  the  right  hand  “ offends  ” or 
leads  to  sin,  it  is  better  to  cut  off  that  right  hand  than  to 


302 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


retain  it.  If  the  right  eye  involves  its  possessor  in  sin,  it 
is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  pluck  it  out,  however  severe  the 
excision  may  be.  These  are  the  teachings  of  Christ  con- 
cerning sin.  What  a fearful  evil  it  must  be  ! The  death 
of  crucifixion  was  usually  a lingering  death,  and  the 
crucifixion  of  sin  is  often  a lingering  process.  How 
many  Christian  soldiers  have  fought  the  battle  against 
sin  from  the  freshness  of  youth,  through  the  vigor  of 
manhood,  down  to  the  decrepitude  of  age!  They  have 
done  so  under  the  impulses  created  by  regeneration  and 
projected  through  the  whole  process  of  sanctification. 
The  spirit  of  Christianity  calls  for  the  crucifixion  of 
sin  in  all  its  forms. 

Again,  sanctification  implies  the  growth  and  improvement 
of  the  Christian  graces . These  graces  enter  into  the  forma7 
fion  of  the  Christian  character,  but  they  are  susceptible 
of  increase  in  strength.  The  most  prominent  of  them 
are  faith,  hope,  and  love ; for  it  is  written,  “And  now 
abideth  faith,  hope,  charity  [or  love],  these  three;  but  the 
greatest  of  these  is  charity.”  1 Cor.  xiii.  13.  That  faith  is 
capable  of  growth  is  clearly  taught  in  the  following  pas- 
sage: “We  are  bound  fo  thank  God  always  for  you, 
brethren,  as  it  is  meetilbecause  that  your  faith  groweth 
exceedingly.^  2 Thess.  i.  3.  There  was  not  only  a growth^ 
but  a remarkable  growth,  in  the  faith  of  the  Thessalonian 
church.  What  was  true  in  apostolic  times  is  true  at  this 
day.  Faith  may  still  grow,  and  in  proportion  to  its 
growth  does  the  work  of  sanctification  advance.  The 
connection  between  faith  and  sanctification  is  taught  in 
such  scriptures  as  these  : “And  put  no  difference  between 
us  and  them,  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith”  (Acts  xv.  9); 
“ That  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  inheritance 
among  them  which  are  sanctified  by  faith  that  is  in  me  ” 
(Acts  xxvi.  18) ; “ Who  is  he  that  overcometh  the  world, 


SANCTIFICA  TION. 


303 


but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God?” 
1 John  v.  5.  The  first  of  these  passages  teaches  that 
the  heart  is  purified  by  means  of  faith ; the  second,  that 
sanctification,  as  well  as  forgiveness  of  sins,  is  dependent 
on  faith  in  Christ;  and  the  third,  that  victory  over  the 
world  is  achieved  through  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Son  of 
God.  As  faith  increases,  the  heart  becomes  purer,  and 
therefore  less  accessible  to  the  influences  of  the  world. 
This  shows  how  it  is  that  faith  overcomes  the  world,  and 
it  shows  also  that  the  degree  of  faith  is  the  measure  of 
sanctification. 

Hope,  as  well  as  faith,  may  be  increased.  In  proof  of 
this  I need  only  quote  Rom.  xv.  13 : “ Now  the  God  of 
hope  fill  you  with  all  joy  and  peace  in  believing,  that  ye 
may  abound  in  hope,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  Here  the  fact  is  recognized  that  Christians  not 
only  entertain  hope,  but  that  they  may  abound  in  hope. 
This  will  be  readily  admitted,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
hope  springs  from  faith.  A weak  faith,  therefore,  in- 
spires a feeble  hope,  and  a strong  faith  a vigorous  hope. 
When  faith,  with  a firm  grasp,  embraces  the  facts  of  the 
gospel,  hope  confidently  looks  for  the  accomplishment 
of  the  promises  of  the  gospel.  The  great  promise,  the 
culmination  of  all  the  promises,  is  eternal  life.  “ This 
is  the  promise  that  he  hath  promised  us,  even  eternal 
life.”  1 John  ii.  25.  The  hope  of  a blissful  immortality 
is  of  necessity  influential.  Its  sanctifying  tendency  is 
positively  asserted  as  follows : a And  every  man  that 
hath  this  hope  in  him  purifieth  himself,  even  as  he  is 
pure.”  1 John  iii.  3.  I doubt  not  that  upon  should  take 
the  place  of  in  if  we  would  have  the  meaning  of  the 
original ; that  is  to  say,  the  hope  of  the  believer  rests  upon 
Christ.  True,  the  hope  is  in  the  believer,  but  Christ  is 
the  foundation  on  which  it  rests.  The  point,  however. 


304 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


which  claims  special  attention  is  the  purifying  influence 
of  Christian  hope.  Q¥hile  the  followers  of  Christ  are 
animated  with  the  hope  of  seeing  him  as  he  is,  and  of 
being  like^him,  it  is  morally  certain  that  they  will  “ follow 
holiness  ” and  use  all  the  means  in  their  power  to  pro- 
mote  their  purification.  Thus  does  it  appear  that  there 
is  a union  between  hope  and  sanctification,  and  that  the 
advance  in  sanctification  is  to  be  measured  by  the  vigor 
of  hope. 

Love  “ abides,”  as  well  as  faith  and  hope;  that  is,  while 
the  gift  of  tongues  and  other  miraculous  gifts  answered 
a temporary  purpose  in  the  establishment  of  Christianity, 
faith,  hope,  and  love  are  permanent,  so  that  wherever  a 
Christian  is  found  to  the  end  of  the  world  there  will  be 
found  in  him  these  three  graces.  The  greatest  of  these 
is  love,  but  its  pre-eminence  is  not  the  thing  now  to  be 
noticed.  Its  capability  of  increase  is  the  matter  which 
claims  attention.  “ And  the  Lord  make  you  to  increase 
and  abound  in  love  one  toward  another,  and  toward  all 
men,  even  as  we  do  toward  you:  to  the  end  he  may 
stablish  your  hearts  unblamable  in  holiness  before  God, 
even  oitr  Father,  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
with  all  his  saints.”  1 Thess.  iii.  12,  13.  If  Christian 
love  and  love  toward  all  men  can  increase  and  abound, 
then  surely  love  to  God  can  increase  and  abound. 
Indeed,  this  must  be  so,  for  Christian  love  and  love 
toward  all  men  grow  out  of  love  to  God.  Jesus  teaches 
us  that  love  may  u wax  cold ;”  and  if  so,  it  may  wax 
warm,  even  to  fervent  heat.  The  spark  may  kindle  into 
a flame  which  will  burn  with  increasing  brightness  on 
the  altar  of  the  heart.  aGod  is  love;”  and  the  more  of 
love  there  is  in  his  people  the  greater  their  moral  near- 
ness and  likeness  to  him.  It  is  therefore  written,  u He 
that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him.” 


SANCTIFICA  TION. 


305 


1 John  iv.  16.  If  God  is  love,  and  if  those  who  dwell  in 
love  dwell  in  him,  then  love  seems  to  be  the  blessed 
element  in  which  sanctification  takes  place.  This  being 
the  case,  an  increase  of  love  is  an  increase  of  sanc- 
tification; and  while  God  causes  his  people  to  abound 
in  love  he  “ establishes  their  hearts  unblamable  in 
holiness  ” 

Once  more : In  the  work  of  sanctification 
Christian  is  more  and  more  conformed  to  the  divine  will . If 
sin  had  not  disturbed  the  harmony  of  the  universe,  there 
would  have  been  but  one  will — the  will  of  God.  Gii 
creatures,  being  in  a state  of  holiness,  would  ha^e  been 
in  a state  of  conformity  to  the  will  of  the  Creator^  That 
this  is  not  the  case  we  have  mournful  proof  in  the  apos- 
tasy of  some  of  the  angels  and  in  the  universal  apostasy 
of  men.  Of  Adam’s  race  it  is  true,  that  “ all  have  sin- 
ned and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.”  Rom.  iii.  23. 

The  divine  will,  according  to  our  best  conception  of  it, 
growls  out  of  the  divine  nature,  and  is  inseparable  from  it. 
That  is,  God  wills  as  he  * does  because  he  is  what  he  is. 
The  crowning  glory  of  his  nature  is  his  holiness,  and  his 
will  is  a recognition  and  an  expression  of  his  holiness. 
God’s  will,  however  manifested,  is  the  rule  of  action  for 
his  rational  creatures.  The  method  .of  its  manifesta- 
tion in  heaven  we  know  not,  but  that  it  is  made  known 
in  some  way  is  evident,  because  Jesus  has  taught  us  to 
pray  “Thy  will  be  done  in  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven.” 
Matt.  vi.  10.  The  essence  of  sin  consists  in  the  conflict 
of  the  creature’s  will  with  the  will  of  the  Creator.  I 
refer  to  the  will  of  the  creature  in  an  enlarged  sense  of 
the  term,  not  only  as  including  volition,  but  the  state  of 
heart  in  which  volition  has  its  origin.  The  will  of  man 
in  his  natural  state  is  in  rebellious  collision  with  the  will 
of  God.  Regeneration,  therefore,  includes  among  other 
26  * 


306 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


things  a rectification  of  the  will,  so  as  to  conform  it  to 
the  will  of  God;  but  the  conformity  is  incipient,  and  not 
perfect.  * Sanctification,  as  we  have  seen,  carries  on  what 
regeneration  begins ; and  hence  the  will  of  the  Christian, 
as  the  work  of  sanctification  goes  on,  is  assimilated  more 
and  more  to  the  will  of  God.  Partial  conformity  to  the 
divine  will  is  partial  sanctification,  and  perfect  conformity 
is  perfect  sanctification^fSmne  suppose  that  the  latter  is  at- 
tainable in  this  life,  but  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  seems 
to  indicate  that  more  or  less  imperfection  will  cleave  to 
the  saints  as  long  as  they  are  “in  the  body.”A  Still,  they 
should  earnestly  strive  to  be  “ holy  as  Gfoais  holy,”  and 
such  striving  would  no  doubt  lead  to  higher  degrees  of 
sanctification.  They  should  regard  the  character  of 
Christ  as  the  standard  of  moral  excellence,  and  devoutly 
aspire  to  perfect  conformity  to  that  standard.  In  other 
words,  Christians  should,  “forgetting  those  tilings  which 
are  behind,  and  reaching  forth  unto  those  things  which 
are  before,  . . . press  toward  the  mark  for  the  prize  of 
the  high  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.”  Phil.  iii.  13. 

While  in  the  threefold  definition  now  given  of  sanctifi- 
cation several  points  have  been  referred  to  which  are  in 
truth  evidences  of  the  progress  of  the  gracious  work,  it 
may  be  well  to  refer  more  definitely  to  some  other  evi- 
dences. I name  the  following: 

1.  A deep  sense  of  unworthiness.  In  all  dispensations  true 
piety  has  exalted  God  and  humbled  man.  The  humil- 
iation has  ever  resulted  from  conscious  unworthiness  in- 
duced by  reverential  views  of  the  divine  character.  Of 
this,  we  have  two  striking  specimens  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Job,  in  meeting  the  charges  made  against  him  by  his  pro- 
fessed friends  and  “ comforters,”  went  too  far  in  his  own 
vindication.  Pie  thought  too  well  of  himself,  and  exhib- 
ited in  some  measure  a spirit  of  self-righteousness.  But 


SANCTIFICA  TION. 


307 


when  “ the  Lord  answered  Job  out  of  the  whirlwind,  and 
said,  Who  is  this  that  darkeneth  counsel  by  words  with- 
out knowledge?”  then  it  was  that  Job  said,  44  Behold  I am 
vile;  what  shall  I answer  thee?  I will  lay  my  hand  on 
my  mouth.”  . . . “ I have  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing 
of  the  ear ; but  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee ; wherefore  I 
abhor  myself,  and  repent  in  dust  and  ashes.”  (See  Job 
xxxviii.  1,  2;  xl.  4;  xlii.  5,  6.)  Job  had  never  had  so  deep 
a sense  of  his  umvorthiness  as  at  that  time,  and  never  did 
the  process  of  sanctification  go  on  so  rapidly  as  then. 

Isaiah,  as  we  learn  from  the  shcth  chapter  of  his  proph- 
ecy, had  a vision,  and  saw  4<  the  Lord  sitting  upon  a throne, 
high  and  lifted  up.”  He  heard  the  six- winged  seraphim 
cry  one  to  another,  “ Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of 
hosts : the  -whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory.”  The  trem- 
bling prophet  said,  44  Woe  is  me ! for  I am  un,done ; be- 
cause I am  a man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I dwell  in  the 
midst  of  a people  of  unclean  lips:  for  mine  eyes  have 
seen  the  King,  the  Lord  of  hosts.”  The  contrast  between 
divine  purity  and  human  imperfection  was  so  great  that 
the  prophet  thought  himself  44  undone,”  utterly  ruined. 
His  sense  of  ruin  arose  from  a sense  of  unworthiness,  and 
he  referred,  no  doubt,  to  the  uncleanness  of  his  lips  as 
symbolic  of  the  uncleanness  of  his  heart.  Never  before 
did  Isaiah  feel  so  unworthy,  never  before  did  he  make 
such  spiritual  attainments. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  have  in  Paul  a remarkable 
example  of  growth  in  grace,  but  who  ever  had  a deeper 
sense  of  unworthiness?  His  words  are,  44 Unto  me,  who 
am  less  than  the  least  of  all  saints,  is  this  grace  given.” 
Eph.  iii.  8.  These  words  were  written  when  he  was  an 
old  man,  two  years  before  his  death  ; and  one  year  before 
his  martyrdom  he  referred  to  himself  as  44  the  chief  of 
sinners.”  The  work  of  sanctification  most  probably  never 


308 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


went  on  with  such  blessed  rapidity  as  during  those  two 
eventful  years.  I think  I may  safely  say  that  as  Chris- 
tians make  progress  in  sanctification  the  more  unworthy 
do  they  appear  to  themselves.  They  are  not  more  un- 
wcrthy  than  those  who  have  not  these  humbling  views, 
but  greater  light  shines  into  their  souls  and  they  make 
new  discoveries. 

2.  An  increasing  hatred  of  sin.  Sin  is  the  opposite  of  holi- 
ness. "anSTTso  far  as  we  know,  God  cannot  make  us  holy 
without  making  us  hate  sin.  He  deals  with  us  as  rational 
creatures,  susceptible  of  hatred  and  love.  To  hate  sin,  we 
must  see  what  an  evil  it  is,  how  odious  and  how  bitter.  • 
This  is  the  important  object  secured  by  conviction.  It  is 
in  God’s  purpose  that  “ sin  by  the  commandment  might 
become  exceeding  sinful.”  Rom.  vii.  13.  When  the  Holy 
Spirit  convinces  of  sin,  he  so  performs  his  work  that  sin 
becomes  hateful.  Hatred  of  sin  enters  into  the  essence 
of  repentance,  and  the  hatred  becomes  more  intense  as 
the  sanctifying  process  advances.  The  epithet  most  fre- 
quently used  to  designate  the  Spirit  of  God  is  “holy;” 
and  this,  doubtless,  is  the  case  because  it  is  his  prov- 
ince to  make  men  holy.  Hatred  of  sin  implies  love 
of  holiness.  The  hatred  and  the  love  necessarily  coexist, 
and  they  are  exactty  equal  in  strength.  The  Christian 
hates  sin  as  much  as  he  loves  holiness,  and  no  more.  As 
the  work  of  sanctification  goes  on,  the  Christian  hates  sin 
more  intensely,  and  the  attainments  he  makes  in  holi- 
ness are  in  proportion  to  his  hatred  of  sin.  Hence  it  is 
that  one  evidence  of  progressive  sanctification  is  an 
increasing  hatred  of  sin. 

3.  A growing  interest  in  the  means  of  grace . The  word 
of  God  is  more  highly  appreciated  as  the  instrument  of 
sanctification;  for  Jesus  prayed,  “Sanctify  them  through 
thy  truth : thy  word  is  truth.”  John  xvii.  17.  Nor  is  the 


SANCTIFICA  T10N. 


309 


truth  of  this  word  brought  into  miraculous  contact  with 
the  heart.  The  Scriptures  must  be  read  and  studied.  A 
superficial  perusal  will  not  do,  for  it  would  be  like  taking 
food  into  the  stomach  and  permitting  it  to  remain  there 
undigested.  The  Christian  must  “ desire  the  sincere  milk 
of  the  word,  that  he  may  grow  thereby.”  1 Pet.  ii.  2. 
The  word  of  God  is  one  of  the  prominent  means  of  pro- 
moling  holiness;  and  if  it  be  asked,  Who  are  advancing 
in  sanctification  ? the  answer  must  be,  Those  described 
by  the  Psalmist,  whose  “ delight  is  in  the  law  of  the  Lord,” 
and  who  in  his  law  “ meditate  day  and  night  ” (Ps.  i.  2) 
— those  in  whose  judgment  and  according  to  whose  spirit- 
ual taste  “the  statutes  of  the  Lord”  are  “more  to  be  de- 
sired . . . than  gold,”  “sweeter  also  than  honey  and  the 
honeycomb.”  Ps.  xix.  8,  10. 

Prayer,  also,  is  a precious  means  of  grace.  The  Chri- 
tian’s  closet  is' a sacred  place,  for  there  he  holds  commu- 
nion with  his  God.  The  divine  eye  alone  sees  him,  the 
divine  ear  alone  hears  him,  while  he  pours  forth  his  soul 
in  fervent  supplication.  It  is  in  answer  to  prayer  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  given,  who  carries  on  the  work  of  sancti- 
fication. If  the  Christian  neglects  prayer,  or  engages  in 
it  in  a heartless  manner,  the  sanctifying  process  stops,  for 
it  cannot  go  on  in  a prayerless  soul.  Those  Christians  in 
whom  has  been  most  attractively  illustrated  the  doctrine 
of  progressive  sanctification  have  been  most  given  to 
prayer.  Religious  biography  will  support  this  declara- 
tion. 

Did  time  and  space  permit,  I might  refer  to  the  social 
and  the  church  prayer-meeting,  the  Lord’s  Day,  the  pub.ic 
services  of  the  sanctuary,  and  the  observance  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper.  These  are  means  of  grace  of  which  those  who 
desire  spiritual  progress  must  avail  themselves.  They 
cannot  be  safely  dispensed  with,  unless  Providence  so 


310 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


orders.  A growing  interest  in  the  means  of  grace  i3 
one  of  the  evidences  that  sanctification  is  advancing  in 
the  soul. 

4.  An  increasing  love  of  things  heavenly.  “ If  ye,  then,  be 
risen  with  Christ,  seek  those  things  which  are  above, 
where  Christ  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  Set  your 
affection  on  things  above,  not  on  things  on  the  earth. 
Bor  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in*  God. 
W hen  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  appear,  then  shall  ye 
al  jo  appear  with  him  in  glory.”  Col.  iii.  1-4. 

Christians  profess  to  have  died  to  sin  and  to  have  risen 
w.th  Christ  to  a new  life.  If  so,  the  impulses  of  their 
renewed  souls  should  prompt  them  to  seek  the  things 
that  are  above,  where  Jesus  is.  Heavenly  objects  should 
attract  their  love,  for  their  citizenship  is  in  heaven.  Their 
names  are  written  in  heaven,  and  Christ  himself  teaches 
us,  that  this  should  be  a source  of  the  sublimest  joy.  He 
has  also  told  his  followers,  that  he  has  gone  to  prepare  a 
place  for  them,  and  we  know  that  he  has  entered  into 
heaven  itself.  It  is  characteristic  of  Christians  to  love 
Christ  and  to  think  of  the  place  he  has  gone  to  prepare 
Their  treasure  is  in  heaven  and  their  hearts  are  there 
They  are  pilgrims  on  earth,  looking  for  the  “city  which 
hath  foundations,  whose  Builder  and  Maker  is  f1  .i.” 
Heb,  xi.  10.  Their  permanent  home  is  heaven. 

^Now,  one  of  the  effects  of  increasing  sanctification  is  the 
weakening  of  the  ties  that  bind  Christians  to  this  world, 
and  the  strengthening  of  their  attachments  to  heavenly 
things.  As  they  grow  in  grace  they  become  less  and  less 
like  men  of  the  world,  who,  because  the}7  have  “ their  por- 
tion in  this  life,”  are  said  to  “ mind  earthly  things.”  There 
is  no  better  evidence  of  progressive  sanctification  than  an 
increasing  love  of  heavenly  things. 

It  is  a delightful  thought  that,  as  perfect  sanctification 


SANCTIFICATION. 


311 


must  precede  admittance  into  heaven,  those  who  appeal 
before  the  throne  of  glory  will  be  clothed  with  robes  of 
spotless  white,  emblems  of  their  immaculate  moral  purity. 
The  last  stain  will  have  been  washed  from  their  souls  by 
the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  and  they  will  stand  before  the 
throne  in  all  the  beauty  of  unblemished  perfection. 
Every  one  of  them  can  then  say,  as  they  now  sing  in 
anticipation, 

“Sin,  ray  worst  enemy  before, 

Shall  vex  my  eyes  and  ears  no  more; 

My  inward  foes  shall  all  be  slain. 

Satan  break  my  peace  ax&kA*,'' 


CHAPTER  XXII. 


GOOD  WORKS. 

It  is  important  to  understand  what  is  m^mt  by  ‘ good 
works.”  They  have  their  proper  olace  in  *he  Christian 
scheme.  They  do  not  precede  justification,  so  as  to  pro- 
cure it,  nor  are  they  performed  before  regeneration,  so  as 
to  effect  it;  but  they  follow  both  and  are  evidences  of 
both.  While  the  phrase  “ good  works  ” implies  a proper 
state  of  heart,  from  which  they  spring,  it  is  evident  from 
the  New  Testament  that  such  works  are  chiefly  outward 
acts  of  consecration  to  God.  In  proof  of  this,  I quote  the 
words  of  Christ,  as  follows : “ Let  your  light  so  shine  be- 
fore men,  that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  and  glorify 
your  Father  which  is  in  heaven.”  Matt.  v.  16.  This  is  the 
first  use  of  the  words  “ good  works  ” in  the  Scriptures, 
and  it  is  plain  that  Christ  refers  to  external  perform- 
ances, which  could  be  seen.  So  also  when  he  said  to  the 
Jews  (John  x.  32),  a Many  good  works  have  I shewed 
you  from  my  Father,”  he  referred  to  his  beneficggt  mira- » • 
c.les  which  they  had  witnessed.  In  Acts  ix.  36,  it  is  said 
of  Dorcas,  “ This  woman  was  full  of  good  works  and 
almsdeeds  which  she  did.”  These  good  works  were 
visible,  and  therefore  known.  From  Rom.  xiii.  3 we 
learn  that  “ rulers  are  not  a,  terror  to  good  works,  but  to 
the  evil.”  Here,  too,  there  must  be  a reference  to  exter- 
nal works.  Paul  taught  likewise  that  an  aged  widow,  lye- 

312 


GOOD  WORKS . 


313 


fore  receiving  assistance  from  a church  fund,  must  be 
‘well  reported  of  for  good  works;  if  she  have  brought 
up  children,  if  she  have  lodged  strangers,  if  she  have 
washed  the  saints’  feet,  if  she  have  relieved  the  afflicted, 
if  she  have  diligently  followed  every  good  work.”  1 Tim. 
v.  10.  In  the  same  Epistle,  the  rich  are  exhorted  to  be 
“ rich  in  good  works  ” (vi.  18),  while  in  the  letter  to  Titus 
he  is  urged  to  show  himself  “ a pattern  of  good  works.” 
Chap.  ii.  7.  When  it  is  said  in  Heb.  x.  24,  “ And  let  us 
consider  one  another  to  provoke  unto  love  and  good 
works,”  it  is  manifest  that  good  works  refer  to  outward 
acts,  even  as  love  refers  to  the  heart.  The  good  works  of 
the  life  were  to  proceed  from  the  love  of  the  heart.  Peter 
wrote  to  his  brethren,  “ Having  your  conversation  [beha- 
vior] honest  among  the  Gentiles:  that,  whereas  they 
speak  against  you  as  evil-doers,  they  may  by  your  good 
works,  which  they  shall  behold,  glorify  God  in  the  day 
of  visitation.”  1 Pet.  ii.  12.  Here,  again,  as  in  the  first 
passage  quoted,  the  visibility  of  good  works  is  taken  for 
granted. 

I have  now  referred  to  a large  majority  of  the  places  in 
the  Scriptures  where  the  phrase  “ good  works  ” is  used, 
and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  denotes  external  acts. 

Now,  while  there  are  good  works  and  evil  works,  it  is 
very  important  to  know  what  are  the  qualities  of  good 
works.  In  other  words,  their  nature  must  be  defined. 
What,  tnen,  is  the  nature  of  good  works?  I give  a 
threefold  answer : 

1.  They  are  prompted  by  supreme  love  to  God.  The  first 
and  the  great  commandment  of  the  law  is,  “ Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart.”  Matt.  xxii.  37. 
This  is  the  universal  duty  of  creatures.  Indeed,  we  are 
so  constituted  that  we  cannot  conceive  how  God  can 
create  a rational  being  under  no  obligation  to  love  him. 

27 


314 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


The  obligation  is  as  undeniable  as  the  light  of  day  or  the 
darkness  of  night.  It  is  true,  also,  that  unless  love  to 
God  is  in  the  heart  of  man,  no  act  of  obedience  rendered 
to  any  command  can  be  acceptable.  It  is  impossible  for 
God  t(  be  pleased  with  such  obedience.  I will  illustrate 
this  point.  Wives  are  required  to  obey  their  husbands, 
and,  according  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  “ the  husband 
is  the  head  of  the  wife.”  Eph.  v.  23.  The  husband,  it  is 
to  be  supposed,  requires  nothing  unreasonable  of  the  wife 
in  the  way  of  compliance  with  his  wishes.  She  may  per- 
form any  number  of  acts  of  external  obedience,  but  if  the 
husband  is  not  assured  of  her  love  he  is  utterly  dissatis- 
fied. The  want  of  love  he  considers  a defect  so  great  a;; 
to  vitiate  every  act  of  obedience.  In  view  of  this  con- 
jugal illustration,  I may  surely  say  that  want  of  love  to 
God  pollutes  every  act  of  obedience  which  man  may  per- 
form. There  can  be  no  acceptable  element  in  any  obedi- 
ence severed  from  love  to  God.  This  was  the  capital  de- 
fect in  “the  righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.” 
They  were  punctilious  in  paying  tithes  of  herbs,  but  the 
Saviour  told  them,  that  they  “passed  over  judgment  and 
the  love  of  God.”  Luke  xi.  42.  The  love  of  God  in  theii 
hearts  did  not  prompt  their  obedience,  and  therefore  the 
obedience  did  not  secure  the  divine  approval ; so  far  from 
it,  the  frown  of  God  was  upon  it. 

No  works  are  evangelically  good  unless  they  proceed 
from  love  to  God,  and  there  is  no  love  to  God  in  any  un- 
renewed heart.  Hence  good  works  are  performed  by  the 
regenerate  alone,  and  are  the  evidences  of  regeneration. 

Every  one  that  loveth  is  born  of  God,”  and  has  been 
“created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works.”  1 John  iv.  7 ; 
Eph.  ii.  10.  The  performance  of  good  works  follows  the 
referred  to  under  the  imagery  of  a bi#rth  and 


great  chan 
a creation 


nange 

ion. 


GOOD  WORKS . 


315 


2.  They  are  conformed  to  the  divine  law.  This  is  an  im- 

portant point.  It  must  not  be  imagined  that  if  we  love 
God,  wre  can  do  anything  we  please  and  still  be  within 
the  sphere  of  good  works.  This  view  is  entirely  wrong 
A good  work  must  not  only  proceed  from  love  to  God 
but  it  must  be  conformed  to  his  law  ; and  if  so,  it  will  bn 
performed  in  compliance  with  the  moral  obligation  of  the 
actor.  For  the  law  of  God  is  the  expression  of  his  will, 
and  of  course  recognizes  the  obligation  of  man  to  do  that 
will.  I would  not  indulge  in  conjecture,  but  I may  say, 
that  while  moral  distinctions  are  traceable  to  the  divine 
nature  as  their  supreme  and  original  source,  the  divine 
will,  as  expressed  in  the  divine  word,  is  the  standard  and 
the  measure  of  human  obligation.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  no  work  can  be  a good  work  the  performance  of 
which  conflicts  with  the  will  of  God  and  is  a violation 
of  moral  obligation.  No  matter  what  motive  may 

prompt  such  a work,  it  cannot  be  a good  work.  It  is 
characteristic  of  a regenerate  soul  that  it  “ consents  to  the 
law  that  it  is  good,”  and  good  works  are  ’performed  in 
obedience  and  conformity  to  the  law. 

3.  They  are  performed  for  the  divine  glory.  This  follows 
the  two  preceding  points,  for  those  who  love  God  and  are 
conformed  to  his  law  must  desire  his  glory.  They  there- 
fore act  with  reference  to  it.  This  is  the  highest  object 
that  mortal  man  can  propose,  and  no  loftier  purpose  con- 
trols the  motives  of  an  archangel.  More  than  this,  God 
himself  acts  with  a view  to  his  glory.  The  essential  glory 
of  God  is  alike  incapable  of  increase  or  diminution,  but 
there  may  be  an  increase  of  his  declarative  glory.  His 
declarative  glory  is  his  manifested  glo:y — the  glory  re- 
sulting from  an  exhibition  of  his  character  and  perfec- 
tions. All  the  good  works  of  the  saints  have  this  tend- 
ency— to  present  the  character  of  God  in  a favorable 


316 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


light — for  they  are  performed  under  his  inspiring  infi  « 
ence,  and  are  feeble  imitations  of  the  good  works  which 
he  is  constantly  doing.  Let  it  never  be  forgotten  that 
good  works  are  performed  by  his  people,  in  order  that 
God  may  be  glorified. 

Having  attempted  to  define  the  nature  of  good  works, 
it  is  well  to  allude  to  two  classes  into  which  they  may  be 
divided ; they  refer  to  the  bodies  and  to  the  souls  of  men. 
The  acts  of  kindness  mentioned  in  Matt.  xxv.  35-40 
pertain  to  the  body : “ For  I was  a-hungered,  and  ye 
gave  me  meat : I was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink : I 
was  a stranger,  and  ye  took  me  in : naked,  and  ye 
clothed  me:  I was  sick,  and  ye  visited  me:  I was  in 
prison,  and  ye  came  unto  me.  Then  shall  the  righteous 
answer  him,  saying,  Lord,  when  saw  we  thee  a-hungered, 
and  fed  thee  ? or  thirsty,  and  gave  thee  drink  ? When 
saw  we  thee  a stranger,  and  took  thee  in?  or  naked,  and 
clothed  thee?  Or  when  saw  we  thee  sick,  or  in  prison, 
and  came  unto  thee?  And  the  King  shall  answer  and 
say  unto  them,  Verily  I say  unto  you,  Inasmuch  as  ye 
have  done  it  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren, 
ye  have  done  it  unto  me.” 

It  is  the  body  that  hungers,  thirsts,  is  naked,  sick,  im- 
prisoned. The  good  works  specified  in  the  verses  quoted 
pertain  to  the  body,  and  they  will  be  approvingly  recog- 
nized at  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.  They  will  be 
referred  to,  not  as  meritorious  of  salvation,  but  as  evi- 
dences of  the  Christian  character  of  those  who  will  be 
welcomed  into  the  heavenly  kingdom.  The  question 
was  once  asked  in  a company  of  Christians,  “ What  is  a 
good  work?”  and  a pious  woman,  without  learning,  but 
with  much  common  sense,  said,  “An  act  of  kindness  that 
we  do  to  the  needy  for  Christ’s  sake,  and  then  forget  it.” 
Admirable  answer! 


GOOD  WORKS. 


317 


It  is  written  in  James  i.  27,  “Pure  religion  and  unde- 
filed before  God  and  the  Father  is  this,  To  visit  the 
fatherless  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep 
himself  unspotted  from  the  world.”  To  visit,  in  the 
sense  of  this  passage,  is,  no  doubt,  to  do  acts  of  kindness 
for  wi  lows  and  fatherless  ones.  Alas ! in  all  ages,  the 
condition  of  widows  and  fatherless  children  has  been  a 
sadly  eloquent  appeal  for  help.  It  is  an  appeal  that  is 
practically  regarded  by  those  who  carry  into  effect  the 
New  Testament  ilea  of  good  works.  Jesus  said,  and  his 
words  are  full  of  meaning,  “ For  ye  have  the  poor  always 
with  you.”  Matt.  xxvi.  11. 

Souls  have  supreme  claims . The  body  has  value  as  the 
tenement  of  the  soul.  What  must  be  the  worth  of  the 
immortal  spirit?  The  question  which  Jesus  asked  has 
remained  unanswered  through  all  the  centuries:  “For 
what  is  a man  profited,  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole  world, 
and  lose  his  own  soul  ? or  what  shall  a man  give  in 
exchange  for  his  soul?”  Matt.  xvi.  26.  This  language 
implies  that  if  a man  should  gain  the  wtrole  world  and 
lose  his  soul,  the  gain  would  be  unspeakably  paltry  and 
the  loss  infinitely  great.  Souls  need  salvation,  and  must 
perish  without  it ; and  salvation,  if  obtained  at  all,  must 
be  secured  during  this  short  life.  When  Jesus  died  on 
the  cross  his  estimate  of  the  value  of  souls  was  written 
in  characters  of  blood.  Surely,  those  who  have  the  mind 
of  Christ  must  feel  compassion  for  unsaved  souls,  and  be 
ready  to  labor  to  rescue  them  from  ruin.  It  is  often  the 
case  that  kindness  shown  to  the  needy  and  suffering  body 
opens  an  avenue  through  which  the  soul  is  reached, 
“lie  that  winneth  souls  is  wise”  (Prov.  xi.  30);  and  the 
soul-winner  shows  his  wisdom  in  the  sanctified  tact  to 
which  he  resorts  in  gaining  his  purpose. 

The  phrase  “ good  works,”  as  descriptive  of  the  efforts 


318 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


of  Christians  for  the  salvation  of  sinners,  has  an  enlarged 
meaning.  It  includes  all  the  methods  of  Christian  labor. 
These  methods  are  many ; among  which  I may  mention 
religious  conversation,  consistent  example,  circulation  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  truths  of  the  gospel  in  othei 
forms,  the  support  of  the  Gospel,  home  and  foreign  mis- 
sions, and  other  Christian  works. 

The  consecration  of  their  tongues  is  a thing  which 
Christians  greatly  need.  They  should  talk  of  the  things 
of  God,  and  recommend  the  religion  of  Jesus  to  their 
dying  fellow-men.  How  can  the  tongue  be  so  usefully 
employed  as  in  telling  of  salvation  through  the  Crucified 
One? 

What  the  tongue  says,  however,  must  be  enforced  by 
the  power  of  Christian  example.  Words  have  but  little 
influence  when  they  are  merely  used  to  commend  that 
which  is  not  practised  by  the  speaker.  Christian  useful- 
ness depends  greatly  on  the  deportment  which  the  Chris- 
tian calling  requires. 

The  word  of  God  is  the  prominent  means  of  conver- 
sion and  salvation.  The  Holy  Spirit  makes  use  of  it 
in  enlightening  the  mind  and  renewing  the  heart.  To 
disseminate  this  word  as  far  as  possible  is  one  of  the 
good  works  which  Christians  should  be  ever  performing. 
“ The  seed  is  the  word,”  and  this  seed  should  be  sown 
far  and  near.  The  extent  of  the  spiritual  crop  to  be 
gathered  from  it  will  not  be  known  till  the  great  harvest- 
day.  It  will  be  seen  then  what  good  has  resulted  from 
the  circulation  of  divine  truth,  whether  in  the  large  vol- 
ume, the  tiny  leaflet,  or  the  various  intermediate  grades 
of  Christian  publications. 

The  gospel  must  be  supported.  By  this  I mean  “that 
they  which  preach  the  gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel.” 
1 Cor.  ix.  14.  The  most  of  those  whom  God  calls  to  this 


GOOD  WORKS, 


319 


work  are  taken  from  the  poor  of  this  world.  Ministers  of 
the  word  are  sometimes  placed  in  circumstances  which 
require  them,  like  Paul,  to  labor  with  their  hands  for 
the  necessaries  of  life,  and  it  is  honorable  for  them  to  do 
so.  Ordinarily,  however,  the  people  who  enjoy  a minis- 
ter’s labors  can  give  him,  at  least,  a moderate  support. 

We  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  home  and  foreign 
missions,  but  in  truth  the  cause  of  missions  is  one. 
the  spirit  of  missions  is  one.  The  language  of  Christ, 
“that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached 
in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem  ” 
(Luke  xxiv.  47),  is  the  fullest  authority  for  missions  in 
the  most  enlarged  sense  of  the  term.  “ Beginning  at  Jeru- 
salem ” embraces  the  work  of  home  missions  in  all  the 
forms  of  that  work;  while  the  words  u among  all  nations  ” 
direct  attention  to  foreign  missions  in  their  world-wide  ope- 
rations. How  sublime  is  the  missionary  enterprise ! It 
contemplates  the  evangelization  of  the  world,  the  salvation 
of  immortal  souls,  the  triumph  of  the  Redeemer’s  king- 
dom, and  the  manifestation  of  God’s  glory  in  all  the  earth. 
This  enterprise  calls  for  the  large  pecuniary  contributions 
of  the  rich  and  the  smaller  offerings  of  the  poor.  Every 
Christian  who  is  not  “ an  object  of  charity  ” should  give 
conscientiously  and  systematically  to  this  cause.  How 
can  money  be  so  wisely  used?  How  can  gold  be  em- 
ployed for  a better  purpose  than  in  extending  the  gospel 
of  salvation,  which  is  more  precious  “than  gold,  yea, 
than  much  fine  gold  ” ? Among  the  good  works  of  Chris- 
tians pecuniary  donations  to  the  cause  of  God  must  nevei 
be  forgotten.  “ The  silver  is  mine,  and  the  gold  is  mine, 
eaith  the  Lord  of  hosts.”  Hag.  ii.  8. 

But  while  the  good  works  embraced  in  the  various 
fields  of  Christian  labor  are  diligently  performed,  un- 
ceasing prayer  must  be  offered  to  God  for  his  blessing 


320 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


Success  depends  on  his  benediction.  Means,  howevei 
earnestly  used,  accomplish  nothing,  unless  he  renders 
them  effectual.  “ Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but  by 
my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.”  Zech.  iv.  6.  Let 
“ the  sacramental  host  of  God’s  elect  ” occupy  a suppli- 
ant attitude.  Prayer  on  God’s  ‘footstool  brings  down 
blessings  from  his  throne. 

In  view  of  the  considerations  presented  in  this  chapter 
the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  Paul  are  very  im- 
pressive: “This  is  a faithful  saying,  and  these  things  I 
will  that  thou  affirm  constantly,  that  they  which  have 
LJieved  in  God  might  be  careful  to  maintain  good 
works.”  Tit.  iii.  8. 

Such  works  are  the  appropriate  fruits  of  faith,  proving 
it  to  be  a vital  principle,  which,  while  it  justifies  before 
God,  prompts  active  consecration  to  his  service.  These 
works  also  are  evidences  of  regeneration,  for  they  show 
in  the  holiness  of  the  life  that  the  germ  of  holiness  has 
been  deposited  in  the  heart. 

In  performing  good  works  Christians  have  the  satisfac- 
tion of  knowing  that  they  are  copying  the  example  of 
Jesus  their  Lord.  We  are  told,  that  when  personally  on 
earth  he  “ went  about  doing  good.”  Acts  x.  38.  This  was 
his  business,  his  calling.  He  not  only  did  good,  but 
“ went  about  ” to  find  opportunities  of  doing  good — to 
find  objects  on  whom  to  confer  his  benefactions.  There 
was  no  bodily  suffering  that  did  not  excite  his  pity 
There  was  no  sorrow  in  any  heart  that  did  not  touch  a 
responsive  chord  in  his  bosom.  He  has  left  his  followers 
an  example  which  it  is  their  highest  honor  to  copy.  Let 
them,  like  him,  go  about  doing  good,  making  the  world 
better  by  their  beneficent  labors ; and  when  their  work  on 
earth  is  done  they  will  be  transferred  to  a sphere  of  more 
exalted  service  in  heaven. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

PERSEVERANCE  OF  SAINTS. 

It  has  been  shown  in  former  chapters,  that  those  who 
sre  saved  by  Christ  are  regenerated,  justified,  adopted,  and 
sanctified.  That  is  to  say,  the  changes  denoted  by  regen- 
eration, justification,  and  adoption  have  already  taken 
place,  while  the  process  of  sanctification  is  going  on.  It 
is  a question  of  deep  interest,  whether  all  who  are  in  a 
state  of  acceptance  with  God  will  continue  therein 
through  life,  and  finally  reach  heaven.  To  this  ques- 
tion, two  answers  are  given,  the  one  affirmative,  the 
other  negative.  The  affirmative  answer  is  full  of  con- 
solation, but  the  negative  excites  fear  and  disquiet. 
The  point,  however,  to  be  decided  is,  What  do  the  Scrip- 
tures teach?  Their  utterance  is  decisive,  whether  the 
decision  be  productive  of  comfort  or  of  apprehension. 
The  word  of  God,  as  it  seems  to  me,  teaches  the  perse- 
verance of  saints  in  a state  of  giace  to  a state  of  glory. 
It  has  been  admitted  in  the  chapter  on  Sanctification,  that 
Christians  are  imperfect,  and  will  be  while  they  are  in  the 
body.  Sometimes  their  imperfection  shows  itself  in  very 
distressing  forms,  as,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  Peter. 
But  as  Peter’s  u faith  failed  not  ”■ — as  he  repented  of  his 
great*  sin  and  obtained  pardon — so  there  is  scriptural 
reason  for  believing  that  every  child  of  God,  however 
grievously  he  may  backslide,  will  be  reclaimed  from  his 

321 


322 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


wanderings.  As  to  those  represented  by  the  “ stony- 
ground  hearers,”  having  “ no  root  in  themselves,”  they 
of  course  in  time  of  temptation  “ fall  away.”  Luke  viii. 
13.  So  those  denoted  by  the  unfruitful  branches  do 
who  have  no  vital  connection  with  the  vine.  Their  union 
with  Christ  is  professional — not  real,  not  spiritual.  They 
therefore  fail  of  salvation.  I refer  only  to  those  who 
“know  the  grace  of  God  in  truth.”  Nor  do  I put  the 
question  as  it  is  sometimes  put — namely,  “ Can  a Christian 
fall  from  a state  of  grace  ?”  I say  he  can,  if  God  gives 
him  up.  There  is  no  impossibility,  but  a positive  ©er- 
tainty  of  his  falling,  unless  he  is  u kept  by  the  power  of 
God  through  faith  unto  salvation.”  1 Pet.  i.  5.  I put  the 
question,  “Will  a Christian  fall  from  a state  of  grace?” 
mid  in  view  of  the  guarantees  of  God’s  covenant  with  his 
people  I humbly,  gratefully,  and  boldly  answer,  No. 

That  saints  will  persevere  through  grace  to  glory  may 
be  argued  from  the  following  considerations : 

1.  The  purpose  of  God  the  Father . This  is  a very  compre- 
hensive purpose.  Taken  in  its  full  extent,  it  not  only  in- 
cludes the  predestination  of  the  saved  to  eternal  life, 
but  also  the  predestination  of  everything  necessary  to 
salvation.  We  therefore  read,  “ Forasmuch  as  ye  know 
that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as 
silver  and  gold,  . . . but  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ,  as  of  a lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot: 
who  verily  was  foreordained  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  but  was  manifest  in  these  last  times  for  you.”  1 
Pet.  i.  18-20.  Here  we  are  clearly  taught  that  Christ,  who 
was  manifested  by  his  incarnation,  was  foreordained  to 
accomplish  the  work  of  redemption  through  his  blood. 
The  atoning  sacrifice  of  Calvary,  which  lays  the  basis  of 
human  salvation,  was  offered  in  pursuance  of  the  purpose 
of  God-  offered  according  to  his  determinate  counsel  and 


PERSEVERANCE  OF  SAINTS. 


323 

foreknowledge.  The  office-work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
also  embraced  in  the  divine  purpose.  This  almighty 
Agent  makes  sinners  “ meet  to  be  partakers  of  the  inher- 
itance of  the  saints  in  light.”  Col.  i.  12. 

That  which  now  claims  special  notice  in  connection  with 
tiie  purpose  of  God  is  the  fact,  or  rather  the  series  of  facts, 
recorded  in  Rom.  viii.  30:  “Moreover,  whom  he  did  pre- 
destinate, them  he  also  called : and  whom  he  called,  them 
he  also  justified : and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also 
glorified.” 

This  has  already  been  termed  the  golden  chain  of  four 
links.  The  links  are  predestination,  calling,  justification, 
and  glorification.  The  predestination  is  the  divine  pur- 
pose, and  the  purpose  is  executed  in  the  calling — another 
name  for  regeneration,  containing  the  germ  of  sanctifica- 
tion— and  in  justification.  That  is,  the  regenerated  and 
the  justified  have  been  regenerated  and  justified  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  purpose  of  God  the  Father,  and  in 
execution  of  it.  In  the  absence  of  this  purpose,  there 
would  have  1 een  no  regeneration,  no  justification.  The 
purpose  by  a blessed  necessity  secures  the  performance  of 
these  parts  of  salvation.  Now  the  question  arises,  Will 
not  the  same  purpose  secure  glorification?  In  other 
words,  Will  not  the  same  considerations  which  prompt 
God  to  regenerate  and  to  justify,  prompt  him  to  glorify? 
We  must  adopt  this  view,  unless  we  believe  in  a suspen- 
sion of  the  divine  purpose  before  glorification  is  accom- 
plished. Would  not  such  a belief  as  this  be  arbitrary  ? 
Would  :t  not  be  more  reasonable  to  believe  in  a suspen- 
sion of  the  purpose  before  regeneration  and  justification? 
Would  it  not  be  more  consistent  to  believe  in  the  forma- 
tion of  no  purpose  at  all  ? But  those  who  deny  the  final 
perseverance  of  the  saints  admit  that  the  purpose  of  God 
is  effected  in  their  rege  neraiion  and  justification.  Shall 


324 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


the  purpose,  then,  be  abandoned  before  it  reaches  its  final 
point  in  the  glorification  of  the  redeemed  ? This,  it  may 
be  said  with  reverence,  would  be  unworthy  of  God.  I 
insist,  therefore,  that  the  purpose  of  God  the  Father 
supplies  a valid  argument  in  favor  of  the  perseverance 
of  saints. 

2.  Union  with  Christ.  That  believers  are  united  to  Christ 
is  a truth  unspeakably  important  and  infinitely  precious. 
It  is  a truth  which  the  New  Testament  affirms  in  a variety 
of  ways.  When,  for  instance,  Christ  is  termed  “ the  true 
Vine,”  his  disciples  are  said  to  be  u branches  ” of  that  Vine. 
John  xv.  1,5.  When  he  is  styled  a “Foundation”  and 
“ Cornerstone,  elect,  precious,”  Christians  are  described  as 
“ living  stones  ” out  of  which  a spiritual  house  is  built  upon 
the  foundation.  (See  1 Cor.  iii.  1 1 ; 1 Pet.  ii.  7,  5.)  When  he 
is  represented 'as  the  Head,  his  followers  are  declared  to 
be  members  of  his  bod}'.  The  union  between  husband 
and  wife  is  referred  to  as  illustrative  of  the  relation  be- 
tween Christ  and  the  subjects  of  his  grace.  It  may  be 
said  that  these  forms  of  expression  are  highly  figurative. 
This  is  true,  but  they  surely  mean  something.  Their  per- 
tinency and  force  arise  from  the  fact  that  there  is  a union 
between  a vine  and  its  branches,  between  a foundation 
and  its  superstructure,  between  the  head  and  the  mem- 
bers of  a body,  between  the  husband  and  the  wife.  The 
strongest  figures  can  only  typify  in  a feeble  manner  the 
union  between  Christ  and  believers. 

There  is  one  phrase  which  expresses  more  fully  than 
any  other  the  intimacy  of  the  union  to  which  I refer. 
Thaf  phrase  is  composed  of  the  two  words — in  Christ. 
No  merely  human  relation  is  thus  expressed.  There  is  a 
relation  between  pastor  and  church,  physician  and  patient, 
lawyer  and  client;  but  no  one  says  that  the  church  is  in 
the  pastor,  or  the  patient  in  the  physician,  or  the  client  in 


PERSEVERANCE  OF  SAINTS. 


325 


the  lawyer.  Christians,  however,  are  said  to  be  i i Christy 
and  he  is  said  to  be  in  them.  They  are  in  him,  and  he 
dwells  in  their  hearts  by  faith  as  the  hope  of  glory.  It 
follows  that  the  union  between  Christ  and  believers  is  a 
most  intimate  one.  Should  it  be  said,  that  faith  is  the 
bond  of  union,  and  that  if  faith  fails,  the  union  will  be 
broken,  I grant  it.  But  what  did  Jesus  say  to  Peter? — “ I 
have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not.”  Luke  xxii. 
32.  His  faith  did  not  fail.  The  conflict  between  faith  and 
unbelief  in  Peter’s  heart  may  have  been,  and  no  doubt 
was,  severe,  but  there  was  no  total  and  final  failure  of  his 
faith.  It  would  have  failed  if  Jesus  had  not  prayed  that 
it  might  not  fail.  As  Jesus  prayed  on  earth  for  Peter,  so 
he  intercedes  in  heaven  for  all  who  believe  in  him.  In 
his  intercession,  is  involved  the  prayer  that  their  “ faith 
fail  not.”  After  Peter’s  experience  it  is  not  strange  that 
he  wrote,  u Kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto 
salvation.”  1 Pet.  i.  5.  The  preserving  power  is  divine;  it 
is  exerted,  not  independently  of  faith,  but  through  faith, 
and  it  is  exerted  “ unto  salvation.”  If,  then,  there  is  thL 
connection  between  faith  and  salvation,  the  union  between 
Christ  and  his  disciples  is  indissoluble.  This  union,  there- 
fore, furnishes  an  argument  for  the  perseverance  of  saints 
which  cannot  be  invalidated.  Who  can  question  the 
power  of  this  argument  when  Jesus  himself  says,  “ My 
sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I know  them,  and  they  follow  me ; 
and  I give  unto  them  eternal  life ; and  they  shall  never 
perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand. 
My  Father,  who  gave  them  me,  is  greater  than  all;  and  no 
man  is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Father’s  hand”? 
John  x.  27-29.  Again  he  says,  “Because  I live,  ye  shall 
live  also.”  John  xiv.  19.  Surely,  if  the  life  of  the  mem- 
bers depends  on  the  life  of  the  Head,  while  there  is  life  in 
the  Head  there  will  be  life  in  the  members.  The  perse- 
28 


326 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


verance  of  saints  through  grace  to  glory  is  therefore 
secured  by  Iheir  vital  union  to  Christ. 
pC  3.  The  uork  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the  Spirit  of  God 
performs  a great  work  in  the  hearts  of  all  who  become 
Christians  is  manifest  from  the  words  “ born  of  the 
Spirit.”  It  is  a radical,  revolutionary  work,  referred  to 
under  the  imagery  of  birth,  creation,  resurrection.  There 
is  me  scripture  which  may  be  specially  considered  in  this 
connection.  It  is  found  in  Eph.  iv.  30  : u And  grieve  not 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye  are  sealed  unto  the 
day  of  redemption.”  There  are  two  views  of  this  passage. 
Some  think  that  the  words  translated  whereby  should  be 
rendered  in  whom,  denoting  “ the  sphere  and  element 
of  the  sealing.”  Dr.  Conant,  taking  this  view,  translates 
the  verse  accordingly.  Dr.  Noyes  retains  the  “ whereby  ” 
of  the  Common  Version.  The  former  view  requires  a be- 
lief that  God  the  Father  performs  the  sealing  operation  in 
the  Holy  Spirit ; the  latter  view  ascribes  the  sealing  agency 
to  the  Spirit.  Whichever  view  is  adopted,  the  work  of  seal- 
ing is  divine,  and  has  reference  to  the  day  of  redemption. 
The  sealing  is  connected  with  “ the  earnest  of  the  Spirit :” 
x Who  hath  also  sealed  us,  and  given  the  earnest  of  the 
Spirit  in  our  hearts.”  2 Cor.  i.  22.  If  the  sealing  is  set- 
ting apart,  designating,  as  in  John  vi.  27,  then  believers 
are  set  apart,  designated,  as  belonging  to  God,  and  the  day 
of  redemption  will  be  the  day  of  their  public  recognition 
as  his.  The  sealing  contemplates  the  period  when  Christ 
shall  come  “the  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation.” 
Heb.  ix.  28.  If,  then,  the  purpose  of  the  sealing  is  accom- 
plished, saints  must  persevere  unto  the  end.  If  the  earnest 
of  the  Spirit  is  inseparable  from  the  sealing,  the  argument 
in  favor  of  perseverance  is  strengthened.  The  earnest  of  the 
Spirit  is  a pledge  and  a foretaste  of  the  glory  to  be  revealed. 
But  of  what  value  would  be  the  pledge  and  the  foretaste 


PERSEVERANCE  OF  SAINTS. 


327 


without  a certainty  of  the  glory?  There  is  certainty  of 
the  glory  if  the  saints  persevere  to  the  end,  but  no  cer- 
tainty if  they  do  not.  “ He  that  endureth  to  the  end 
shall  be  saved.”  Matt.  x.  22.  Thus  does  it  appear,  from 
the  conjoint  work  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  salvation  of  believers,  that  the  perseverance 
nf  saints  is  provided  for  and  secured.  Much  more 
might  be  said  on  this  interesting  topic,  but  I must 
forbear. 

There  are  two  prominent  objections  often  urged  against 
the  final  perseverance  of  saints.  The  one  is,  that  the  doc- 
trine is  inconsistent  with  the  promises,  the  admonitions, 
the  warnings,  and  the  threatenings  addressed  to  the  peo- 
ple of  God  in  his  word.  The  answer  to  this  objection  is 
that  Christians  are  dealt  with  as  rational  beings,  and 
therefore  susceptible  of  influence  from  motive.  Hence 
their  hopes  and  fears  are  appealed  to,  and  the  appeal  is 
designed  to  stimulate  their  activity  in  working  out  their 
salvation.  In  other  words,  they  are  to  be  saved  in  the 
use  of  means,  and  not  in  neglect  of  means.  No  one  sees 
inconsistency  in  the  connection  between  means  and  phys- 
ical results.  Where,  then,  is  the  inconsistency  between 
means  and  spiritual  results?  If  God  has  made  the  cul- 
tivation of  the  soil  and  the  sowing  of  seed  necessary  to 
a literal  crop,  it  cannot  be  unworthy  of  him  to  make  the 
“ reaping  of  life  everlasting  ” dependent  on  “ sowing  to 
the  Spirit.”  Gal.  vi.  8.  The  scriptural  view  of  the  matter 
is  strongly  expressed  in  these  words:  “For  we  are  his 
workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  wcrks, 
which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  shohd  walk 
m them.”  Eph.  ii.  10. 

The  other  leading  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  per- 
severance of  saints  is,  that  it  is  unfriendly  to  the  interests 
of  holiness.  That  is,  it  is  supposed  that  if  Christians 


328 


CHRIST  I A X 1)  0 CTRINES. 


were  certain  of  getting  to  heaven  at  last,  they  would  not 
strive  to  live  lives  of  holiness  on  earth.  But  is  it  not  true 
that  the  love  of  holiness  which  regeneration  creates,  must 
prompt  to  holy  obedience  in  the  life?  Is  there  not  a sa- 
cred necessity  in  the  case?  If  so,  where  is  there  anything 
unfriendly  to  the  interests  of  holiness?  Is  not  a love  of 
holiness  the  best  security  for  obedience? 

As  to  those  professing  Christians  who  fail  to  show  their 
faith  by  their  works  of  obedience,  I may  say  that  they  de- 
prive themselves  of  all  scriptural  proof  that  they  are  Chris- 
tians. The  doctrine  advocated  in  this  chapter  is  the  per- 
severance of  saints . Those,  therefore,  who  do  not  perse- 
vere should  not  consider  themselves  saints.  This  view 
of  the  matter  shows  that  the  doctrine  is  not  unfriendly 
to  the  interests  of  holiness,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
tains a stimulus  to  obedience,  that  the  scriptural  evidence 
of  saintship  may  be  possessed  and  enjoyed. 

It  is  a delightful  thought  that  “the  righteous,  obtaining 
help  from  God,  shall  hold  on  his  way  ” (Job  xvii.  9)  and 
ultimately  reach  the  bright  mansions  of  glory  in  heaven. 
He  who,  when  standing  on  the  verge  of  eternity,  can  say 
with  Paul  “ I have  fought  the  good  fight,”  can  also  say 
with  him,  u Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a crown 
of  righteousness  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  Judge, 
bln II  give  me  a*  that  day.”  2 Tim.  iv.  7,  8. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  CHURCH A 


The  term  church  frequently  occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  may  be  found  there  more  than  a hundred 
times.  The  word  thus  translated  means  congregation  or 
assembly,  but  it  does  not  indicate  the  purpose  for  which 
the  congregation  or  assembly  meetsy  Hence  it  is  used 
Acts  xix.  32,  39,  41,  and  rendered  assembly.  In  every 
other  place  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  translated  church . 
In  its  application  to  the  followers  of  Christ  it  is  usually, 
if  not  always,  employed  to  designate  a particular  congre- 
gation of  saints  or  the  redeemed  in  the  aggregate.  It  is 
used  in  the  latter  sense  in  several  passages,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, when  Paul  says,  “ Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and 
gave  himself  for  it ; . . . .that  he  might  present  it  to  him- 
self a glorious  church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any 
such  thing.”  Eph.  v.  25-27.  In  these  places  and  in  seve- 
ral others  it  would  be  absurd  to  define  the  term  “ church  ” 
as  meaning  a particular  congregation  of  Christians  meet- 
ing in  one  place  for  the  worship  of  God. 

The  other  signification  of  the  word  claims  special  at- 

1 If  any  are  disposed  to  say  that  this  chapter  should  immediately 
follow  the  one  on  Regeneration,  I shall  not  deny  it.  Still,  all  things 
considered,  I have  thought  it  best  to  present  in  unbroken  connection 
the  topics  of  Regeneration,  Justification,  Adoption,  Sanctification, 
etc. 


23  * 


329 


330 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


tention.  In  a large  majority  of  instances  It  is  used  in  the 
Scriptures  to  denote  a local  assembly  convened  for  relig- 
ious purposes.  Thus  we  read  of  uthe  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem/’ “the  church  of  the  Thessalonians,”  “the  church  of 
Ephesus,”  “the  church  in  Smyrna.”  Nor  are  we  to  sup- 
pose that  it  required  a large  number  of  persons  to  consti- 
tute a church.  Paul  refers  to  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  and 
“ the  church  that  is  in  their  house;”  to  “ Nymphas,  and 
the  church  which  is  in  his  house.”  1 Cor.  xvi.  19;  Col. 
iv.  15.  A congregation  of  saints,  organized  according  to 
the  New  Testament,  whether  that  congregation  is  large  or 
small,  is  a church.  The  inspired  writers,  as  if  to  preclude 
the  idea  of  a church  commensurate  with  a province,  a 
kingdom,  or  an  empire,  make  use  of  the  following  forms 
of  expression : “the  churches  of  Galatia,”  “the  churches 
of  Macedonia,”  “ the  churches  of  Asia,”  “ the  churches  of 
Judea.”  But  they  never  say  “the  church  of  Galatia,” 
“ the  church  of  Macedonia.”  Wherever  Christianity  pre- 
vailed in  apostolic  times  there  was  a plurality  of 
churches. 

In  answer  to  the  question,  What  is  a church?  it  may 
t be  said,  A church  is  a congregation  of  Christ’s  baptized 
disciples,  acknowledging  him  as  their  Head,  relying  on 
his  atoning  sacrifice  for  justification  before  God,  depend- 
ing on  the  Holy  Spirit  for  sanctification,  united  in  the 
belief  of  the  gospel,  agreeing  to  maintain  its  ordinances 
and  obey  its  precepts,  meeting  together  for  worship,  and 
co -operating  for  the  extension  of  Christ’s  kingdom  in  the 
world.  If  any  prefer  an  abridgment  of  this  definition, 
it  may  be  given  thus:  A church  is  a congregation  of 
Christ’s  baptized  disciples,  united  in  the  belief  of  what 
he  has  said,  and  covenanting  to  do  what  he  has  com- 
manded. / 

If  this  definition  of  the  term  “ church  ” is  correct,  it  is 


THE  CHURCH 


331 


manifest  that  membership  is  preceded  by  important 
qualifications.  These  qualifications  may  be  considered 
- as  moral  and  ceremonial.  All  moral  qualifications  are 
embraced  in  Regeneration,  with  its  attendants,  Repent- 
ance and  Faith,  already  discussed.1 

It  is  obvious  that  the  purposes  of  church  organization 
can  be  carried  into  effect  by  regenerate  persons  alone. 
Those  who  become  members  of  a church  must  first  have 
exercised  u repentance  toward  God  and  faith  toward  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  They  are  “ called  to  be  saints/’  and 
must  “ walk  worthy  of  the  vocation  wherewith  [they] 
are  called.” 

Baptism  is  the  ceremonial  qualification  for  church  mem- 
bership. There  can,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  be  no 
visible  church  without  baptism.  An  observance  of  this 
ordinance  is  the  believer’s  first  public  act  of  obedience 
to  Christ.  Regeneration,  repentance,  and  faith  are  private 
matters  between  God  and  the  soul.  They  involve  inter- 
nal piety,  but  of  this  piety  there  must  be  an  external 
manifestation.  This  manifestation  is  made  in  baptism. 
The  penitent,  regenerate  believer  is  baptized  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  There  is  a visible,  symbolic  expression  of  a new 
relationship  to  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead — a re- 
lationship entered  into  in  repentance,  faith,  and  regenera- 
tion. As  Baptism  will  be  the  topic  of  a distinct  chapter, 
it  is  briefly  referred  to  here. 

Officers  of  a Church. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  officers  are  essential  to  the 
existence  of  a church,  for  a church  must  exist  before  it 
can  appoint  its  officers.  After  this  appointment,  if,  in 
the  providence  of  God,  they  should  be  removed  by  death, 

> Chapter  XVIII. 


332 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


it  migLl  affect  the  interests,  but  not  the  being , of  a ch  arch. 
It  has  been  well  said  that  “although  officers  are  not 
necessary  to  the  being  of  a church,  they  are  necessary  to 
its  well-being .”  Paul,  refering  to  Christ’s  ascension  gifts, 
says:  “And  he  gave  some,  apostles  ; and  some*  prophets ; 
and  some,  evangelists;  and  some,  pastors  and  teachers; 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try, for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ.”  Eph.  iv.  11, 
12.  Apostles,  prophets,  and  evangelists  filled  extraordi- 
nary and  temporary  offices.  There  are  no  such  offices 
now.  Pastors  and  teachers,  the  same  men,  are  the  ordi- 
nary and  permanent  spiritual  officers  of  the  churches, 
while  the  office  of  deacon  has  special  reference  to  the  sec- 
ular interests  of  the  churches.  Of  these  two  offices,  the 
following  things  may  be  said : 

1.  Pastors. — This  term  was  first  applied  to  ministers 
having  oversight  of  churches.  The  reason,  no  doubt,  was 
in  the  resemblance  between  the  work  of  a pastor  and  that 
of  a literal  shepherd.  A shepherd  has  under  his  charge 
a flock,  for  which  he  must  care  and  for  whose  wants  he 
must  provide.  The  sheep  and  the  lambs  must  be  looked 
after.  The  Lord  Jesus,  “ that  great  Shepherd  of  the 
sheep”  (Heb.  xiii.  20),  virtually  says  to  all  his  under- 
shepherds, as  he  did  to  Peter,  “ Feed  my  lambs,”  “ Feed 
my  sheep.”  John  xxi.  15,  16.  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  this  language  was  not  addressed  to  Peter  until  the 
Saviour  had  obtained  from  him  an  affirmative  answer 
to  the  question,  “ Lovest  thou  me?”  As  if  he  had  said. 
“ I love  my  spiritual  flock  so  well  that  I cannot  entrust 
the  sheep  and  lambs  composing  it  to  any  man  who  does 
not  love  me.”  Love  to  Christ  must  be  regarded  in  all 
ages  and  in  all  places  as  the  pastor’s  supreme  qualification. 
All  other  jualifications  are  worthless  if  this  is  absent) 
Talent  and  learning  are  not  to  be  undervalued,  but  they 


THE  CHUECTI. 


333 


must  be  kept  under  the  control  of  piety  and  receive 
its  sanctifying  impress. 

The  work  of  pastors  is  referred  to  b}7  Paul  when  he 
says,  If  a man  desire  the  office  of  a bishop,  he  desireth 
a good  work.”  1 Tim.  iii.  1.  It  is  indeed  a good  work — 
the  best  work  on  earth — but  a work.  The  term  bishop 
must  not  be  suffered  to  suggest  any  such  idea  as  its  mod- 
ern acceptation  implies.  In  apostolic  times  there  were 
no  bishops  having  charge  of  the  churches  in  a district 
of  country,  in  a province,  or  a kingdom.  A bishop  was 
the  pastor  of  a church,  and  the  New  Testament,  so  far 
from  encouraging  a plurality  of  churches  under  one 
pastor,  refers  in  two  instances  at  least  to  a plurality  of 
pastors  in  one  church.  (See  Acts  xx.  28;  Phil.  i.  1.)  In 
the  former  passage  the  elders  of  the  church  of  Ephesus 
are  called  overseers , and  the  word  thus  translated  is  the 
same  rendered  bishop  in  Phil.  i.  1 ; 1 Tim.  iii.  2 ; Tit.  i. 
7 ; 1 Pet.  ii.  25.  Thus  does  it  appear  that  pastor,  bishop, 
and  elder  are  three  terms  designating  the  same  office. 
This  view  is  further  confirmed  by  a reference  to  1 Pet.  v. 
1,  2,  where  elders  are  exhorted  to  “feed  the  flock  of  God  ' 
— that  is,  to  perform  the  office  of  pastor — “ taking  the 
oversight  thereof;”  that  is,  acting  the  part  of  bishops,  or 
overseers.  For  the  word  translated  “ taking  the  over- 
sight ” belongs  to  the  same  family  of  words  as  the  term 
rendered  u bishop  ” in  the  passages  cited.  It  is  plain,  there- 
fore, that  a pastor’s  work  is  the  spin  tual  oversight  of  the 
flock,  the  church  he  serves.  Like  a good  literal  shep- 
herd, he  must  care  for  the  feeble  and  the  sick  as  well  as 
for  the  healthy  and  the  vigorous.  Some  he  can  feed 
with  u strong  meat,”  while  others  can  digest  nothing  but 
“milk.”  He  must  exercise  a sanctified  discret’on,  and 
“study  to  show  ” himself  “approved  unto  God,  a work- 
man that  needeth  not  to  be  ashamed,  rightly  dividing 


334 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


the  word  of  truth.”  2 Tim.  ii.  15.  Much  depends  on 
dividing  the  word  of  truth  rightly ; hence  the  necessity 
of  study,  prayerful  study,  imbued  with  the  Spirit  of  the 
Master. 

The  administration  of  the  ordinances — which  are  two, 
baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper — as  well  as  the  preaching 
of  the  word,  is  the  proper  business  of  the  pastor.  As  it 
does  not  accord  with  the  plan  of  this  volume  to  elaborate 
any  topic,  the  work  of  the  pastor  cannot  be  enlarged  on, 
nor  is  there  room  to  present  the  many  motives  to  pastoral 
fidelity.  The  mention  of  two  must  suffice : The  church 
over  whose  interests  the  pastor  watches  has  been  bought 
with  “the  precious  blood  of  Christ,”  and  the  faithful 
pastor  will,  when  “ the  chief  Shepherd  ” comes,  “ receive 
a crown  of  glory  that  fadeth  not  away.”  1 Pet.  v.  4.  What 
motives  to  diligence  and  faithfulness  could  possess  more 
exhaustless  power? 

2.  Deacons. — The  office  of  deacon  originated  in  a state 
of  things  referred  to  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  It  is  said,  that  “when  the  number  of  the 
disciples  was  multiplied,  there  arose  a murmuring  of 
the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows 
w7ere  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration.”  The  “ Gre- 
cians ” were  Jews  as  well  as  the  Hebrews,  but  they  spoke 
the  Greek  language,  and  were  probably  not  natives  of 
Palestine.  The  members  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  “had 
all  things  in  common,”  and  a distribution  wras  made 
out  of  the  common  stock  “as  every  man  had  need.’; 
Acts  iv.  35.  This  seems  to  have  been  done  at  first  under 
the  immediate  direction  of  the  apostles;  and  the  inti- 
mation is  that  the  large  increase  of  the  church  interfered 
with  an  impartial  distribution  of  supplies.  The  apostles 
sawT  that  if  they  made  it  their  business  to  “ serve  tables,” 
it  would  greatly  hinder  their  work  in  its  spiritual  aspects. 


THE  CHURCH 


335 


Thev  said,  “ It  is  not  reason  that  we  should  leave  the 
word  of  God,  and  serve  tables.  Wherefore,  brethren, 
look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men  of  honest  report,  full 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint 
os^er  this  business.  But  we  will  give  ourselves  contin- 
ual] y to  prayer,  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word.”  Acts 
vi.  3,  4. 

Thus  the  creation  of  the  office  of  deacon  recognizes  the 
fact  that  the  duties  of  pastors  are  pre-eminently  spiritual, 
and  that  they  should  not  be  burdened  with  the  secular 
interests  of  the  churches. 

The  words  “men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  wisdom,”  applied  to  the  first  deacons,  indicate 
that  they  were  men  of  unblemished  reputation,  ardent 
piety,  and  good  common  sense.  The  phrase  “full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ” is  an  admirable  definition  of  fervent,  ele- 
vated piety ; and  in  the  selection  of  deacons  their  spir- 
ituality must  be  regarded,  for  their  duties  are  not  exclu- 
sively secular.  Their  secular  duties,  however,  should  be 
performed  in  a spiritual  frame  of  mind,  and  in  this  way 
they  “ purchase  to  themselves  a good  degree,  and  great 
boldness  in  the  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.”  1 Tim.  iii. 
13.  In  visiting  the  poor  to  distribute  the  charities  of  the 
church,  deacons  must  not  perform  the  duty  in  a formal 
manner,  but  must  inquire  into  the  spiritual  as  well  as  the 
worldly  circumstances  of  the  recipients  of  the  church’s 
bounty.  They  will  often  witness  such  an  exhibition  of 
faith,  patience,  gratitude,  and  resignation  as  will  richly 
repay  them  for  their  labor  of  love.  As  occasion  may  re- 
quire, they  should  report  to  the  pastor  such  cases  as  need 
his  special  attention,  and  thus  they  will  become  a con- 
necting link  between  the  pastor  and  the  needy  ones  of  the 
church. 

As  deacons  were  first  appointed  “ to  serve  tal  les,”  it 


336 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


may  be  well  to  say  that  there  are  three  tables  for  them 
to  serve: 

1.  The  table  of  the  poor ; 2.  The  table  of  the  Lord ; 3.  The 
table  of  the  pastor.  The  pecuniary  supplies  to  enable  them 
to  serve  these  tables  must  be  furnished  by  the  church. 
The  custom  of  taking  a u collection  ” for  the  poor  after 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  is  a good  one.  It  is 
suitable  at  the  close  of  the  solemn  service  to  think  of  the 
pious  poor  whom  sickness  or  some  other  misfortune  may 
have  kept  from  the  sacred  feast. 

As  some  pecuniary  expenditure  is  necessary  in  furnish- 
ing the  table  of  the  Lord,  this  should  be  made  through 
the  deacons ; and  it  is  eminently  proper,  though  not  in- 
dispensable, for  them  to  wait  on  the  communicants  in  the 
distribution  of  the  elements. 

Deacons  should  serve  the  pastor’s  table.  It  is  not  for 
them  to  decide  how  liberally  or  scantily  it  shall  be  sup- 
plied. The  church  must  make  the  decision,  and  enlarged 
views  should  be  taken  wThen  it  is  made,  for  the  energies  of 
hundreds  of  pastors  are  greatly  impaired  by  an  incompe- 
tent support.  The  pastor’s  compensation  having  been 
agreed  on  by  the  church,  the  deacons  must  see  that  it 
is  raised  and  paid  over.  They  may  appoint  one  of* 
their  number  acting  treasurer,  who  shall  receive  and 
pay  out  funds ; but  it  should  never  be  forgotten  that 
deacons  were  originally,  by  virtue  of  their  office,  the 
treasurers  of  the  church. 

As  all  pecuniary  expenditures  are  to  be  made  through 
deacons,  they  should  at  the  end  of  every  year  make  a re- 
port to  the  church  of  what  moneys  they  have  received  dur- 
ing the  year,  and  how  they  have  been  expended.  This 
will  keep  everything  straight  and  plain,  while  it  will 
do  very  much  for  the  promotion  of  a church’s  influence 
and  efficiency. 


THE  CHURCH 


337 


Deacons  as  well  as  pastora  should  be  ordained  to  office 
by  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  hands. 

Ciiurch  Government. 

In  the  language  of  theolog}q  and  in  popular  language 
too,  there  are  three  forms  of  church  government,  knowm 
by  the  terms  Episcopacy,  Presbyterianism,  and  Inde- 
pendency. 

Episcopacy  recognizes  the  right  of  bishops  to  preside 
over  districts  of  country,  and  one  of  its  fundamental 
doctrines  is  that  a bishop  is  officially  superior  to 
other  ministers.  Of  course,  a modern  bishop  has  under 
his  charge  the  “inferior  clergy,”  for  it  is  insisted  that 
the  “ ordaining  power  ” and  “ the  right  to  rule  ” belong 
to  the  episcopal  office.  The  modern  application  of  the 
term  “ bishop  ” to  a man  who  has  under  his  charge  a dis- 
trict of  country  is  very  objectionable.  It  has  almost 
banished  from  Christendom  the  idea  originally  attached 
to  the  word.  In  apostolic  times,  as  we  have  seen, 
“ bishop,”  “ pastor,”  and  “ elder  ” were  terms  of  equiva- 
lent import. 

Presbyterianism  recognizes  two  classes  of  elders— 
’preaching  and  ruling  elders.  The  pastor  and  ruling 
elders  of  a congregation  constitute  what  is  called  “ the 
session  of  the  church.”  The  “ session  ” transacts  the 
business  of  the  church,  receives,  dismisses,  and  excludes 
members.  From  the  decisions  of  a session  there  is  an 
appeal  to  the  Presbytery,  from  the  action  of  the  Presby- 
tery an  appeal  to  the  Synod,  and  from  the  action  of  the 
Synod  an  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly,  whose  adjudi- 
cations are  final  and  irresistible. 

Independency  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  Epis- 
copacy and  Presbyterianism,  and  distinctly  affirms  these 
three  truths : 


29 


338 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


1.  That  the  governmental  power  is  in  the  hands  yf  the  mem* 
bers  of  a church.  It  resides  with  the  members  in  contra- 
distinction from  bishops  or  elders;  that  is  to  say,  bish- 
ops, or  elders,  can  do  nothing  strictly  and  properly  eccle- 
siastical without  the  concurrence  of  the  members. 

2.  The  right  of  a majority  of  the  members  of  a church  to  rule 
in  accordance  with  the  law  of  Christ.  The  will  of  the  ma- 
jority having  been  expressed,  it  becomes  the  minority 
to  submit. 

3.  That  the  power  of  a church  cannot  be  transferred  or 
alienated , and  that  church  action  is  final.  The  power  of  a 
church  cannot  be  delegated.  There  may  be  messengers 
of  a church,  but  there  cannot  be,  in  the  proper  use  of 
the  term,  delegates. 

These  are  highly  important  principles ; and  while  the 
existence  of  the  independent  form  of  church  government 
depends  on  their  recognition  and  application,  it  is  an  in- 
quiry of  vital  moment,  Does  the  New  Testament  inculcate 
these  principles?  For  if  it  does  not,  whatever  may  be 
said  in  commendation  of  them,  they  possess  no  obligatory 
force.  Does  the  New  Testament,  then,  inculcate  the  foun- 
dation-principle of  Independency — namely,  that  the  gov- 
ernmental power  of  a church  is,  under  Christ,  with  the 
members?  Let  us  see. 

It  was  the  province  of  the  apostolic  churches  to  admit 
members  into  their  communion.  In  Rom.  xiv.  1,  it  is 
written : “ Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye.”  The 
import  of  this  language  is,  “ Receive  into  your  fellowship 
and  treat  as  a Christian  him  who  is  weak  in  faith.”  There 
is  a command : “ receive  ye.”  To  whom  is  this  command 
addressed  ? Not  to  bishops,  not  to  the  pastor  and  “ rul- 
ing elders,”  but  to  the  church,  for  the  Epistle  was  written 
“to  all  that  be  in  Rome,  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be 
eaints.” 


THE  CHURCH. 


339 


New  Testament  churches  had  the  right  to  exclude  un- 
worthy members,  and  they  exercised  the  right.  Paul,  in 
referring  to  “ the  incestuous  man  ” at  Corinth,  says  to  the 
church : “ In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  ye 
are  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such  an  one  to  Satan, 
for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be 
saved  ir.  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.”  1 Cor.  v.  4,  5.  It 
is  worthy  of  remark  that  while  Paul  “ judged  ” that  the 
guilty  man  should  be  excluded  from  the  church,  he  did 
not  exclude  him.  He  did  not  claim  the  right  to  do  so  ; 
and  when  he  said  to  the  “ churches  of  Galatia,”  “ I would 
they  were  even  cut  off  who  trouble  you,”  he  did  not  cut 
them  off,  though  he  desired  that  it  should  be  done.  With 
regard  to  “the  incestuous  man,”  Paul  said,  “ Put  away 
from  among  yourselves  that  wicked  person.”  1 Cor.  v.  13. 
Here  is  a command,  given  by  an  inspired  man,  requiring 
the  exclusion  of  an  unworthy  member  from  the  church  at 
Corinth.  To  whom  was  the  command  addressed ? “Unto 
the  church  of  God,  which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them  that  are 
sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints.”  1 Cor.  v 1. 
The  right  of  a church  to  exclude  unworthy  members  is 
taught  in  Matt,  xvii,  17 ; 2 Thess.  iii.  6,  and  in  other  places. 

The  apostolic  churches  had  the  power  and  the  right  to 
restore  to  fellowship  excluded  members  who  gave  satis- 
factory evidence  of  penitence.  In  2 Cor.  ii.  6-8  “ the  in- 
cestuous man”  is  again  mentioned  as  follows:  “Sufficient 
to  such  a man  is  this  punishment,  T\hich  was  inflicted  of 
many.  . . . Wherefore  I beseech  you  that  ye  would  con- 
firm your  love  toward  him.”  Paul  could  no  more  restore 
him  than  he  could  expel  him  in  the  first  ir. stance,  but  he 
says,  “ I beseech  you.”  The  great  apostle  bowed  to  the 
majesty  of  the  doctrine  of  church  independence.  He 
virtually  admitted  that  nothing  could  be  done  unless  the 


340 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


church  chose  to  act.  Now,  if  the  New  Testament  churches 
had  the  right  to  receive,  exclude,  and  restore  members, 
they  must  have  had  the  right  to  transact  any  other  busi- 
ness coming  before  them.  There  surely  can  be  nothing 
more  vital  to  the  interests  of  a church  than  the  reception, 
exclusion,  and  restoration  of  members.  Here  I rest  the 
argument  for  the  foundation-principle  of  church  inde- 
pendency, though  many  other  passages  might  be  adduced 
in  favor  of  it. 

A second  principle  of  Independency,  already  announced, 
is  the  right  of  a majority  of  the  members  of  a church  to 
rule  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  Christ.  I refer  again 
to  2 Cor.  ii.  6 : “ Sufficient  to  such  a man  is  this  punish- 
ment, which  was  inflicted  of  many.”  A literal  transla- 
tion of  the  words  rendered  “ of  many  ” would  be  “ by  the 
more  ” — that  is,  by  the  majority.  Dr.  MacKnight’s  trans- 
lation is,  “ by  the  greater  number.”  If,  as  has  been  shown, 
the  governmental  power  of  a church  is  with  the  members, 
it  follows  that  a majority  must  rule.  This  is  so  plain  a 
principle  of  Independency  and  of  common  sense,  that  it 
is  needless  to  dwell  upon  it. 

A third  truth  involved  in  the  independent  form  of 
church  government  is,  that  the  power  of  a church  cannot 
be  transferred  or  alienated,  and  that  church  action  is 
final.  The  church  at  Corinth  could  not  transfer  her 
power  to  the  church  at  Philippi,  nor  could  the  church 
at  Antioch  convey  her  authority  to  the  church  of  Ephe- 
sus. Neither  could  all  the  apostolic  churches  combined 
delegate  their  power  to  an  association  or  synod  or  con- 
vention. That  church  power  is  inalienable  results  from 
the  foundation-principle  of  Independency — namely,  that 
this  power  is  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  the  membership. 
Tf  the  power  of  a church  cannot  be  transferred,  church 
action  is  final.  That  there  is  no  tribunal  higher  than  a 


THE  ci/uncir. 


341 


church  is  evident  from  Matt,  xviii.  15-17.  The  Saviour 
layn  down  a rule  for  the  adjustment  of  private  differences 
among  brethren:  “If  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against 
thee,  go  and  toll  hirn  his  fault.”  If  the  offender,  when 
told  of  his  fault,  does  not  give  satisfaction,  the  offended 
brother  is  to  take  with  him  “one  or  two  more,  that  in  the 
mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be  es- 
tablished.” But  if  the  offender  “shall  neglect  to  hear 
them,”  what  is  to  be  done?  Tell  it  to  the  church.  What 
church?  Evidently  the  particular  congregation  to  which 
the  parties  belong.  If  the  offender  does  not  hear  the 
church,  what  then  ? “ Let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a heathen 
man  and  a publican.”  But  can  there  be  no  appeal  to  an 
association  or  presbytery  or  conference  or  convention? 
No;  there  is  no  appeal.  Shall  any  kind  of  organization 
put  the  offender  back  in  church  fellowship  when  the 
church  by  its  action  classed  him  with  heathen  men  and 
publicans?  This  is  too  absurd.  What  sort  of  fellowship 
would  it  be?1 

1 It  wax  rn y dwign  to  present  the  subject  of  church  discipline  in  thin 
connection,  but,  finding  that,  I cannot  do  ho  without  making  this  chap- 
ter too  long,  I abandon  my  purpone.  The  topic  i«  very  important,  and 
I take  the  liberty  of  referring  the  reader  to  chapter  vi.  of  my  Church 
Manual,  whe  c thin  subject  i«  discussed  at  Home  length.  (Bee  pp. 
118  H7.) 

»• 


CHAPTER  XXV. 


BAPTISM. 

If,  as  has  been  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  a 
church  is  a congregation  of  Christ's  baptized  disciples, 
then  we  must  consider  two  important  questions,  What  is 
baptism?  and  Who  are  to  be  baptized?  In  other  words, 
What  is  the  act  of  baptism  ? and  who  are  subjects  of  the 
ordinance?  These  two  points  now  claim  consideration. 

I.  The  Act  of  Baptism. 

Baptism  is  the  immersion  in  water,  by  a proper  admin- 
istrator, of  a believer  in  Christ,  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Immer- 
sion is  so  exclusively  the  baptismal  act  that  without 
it  there  is  no  baptism;  and  a believer  in  Christ  is  so 
exclusively  the  subject  of  baptism  that  without  such 
a subject  there  is  no  baptism.1  That  immersion  alone 
is  the  baptismal  act  may  be  shown  by  the  Allowing 
considerations : 

1.  Greek  lexicons  give  immerse , dip , or  plunge , as  the 
primary  and  ordinary  meaning  of  baptizoj  Here  it  is  proper 
to  say  that  baptizo  and  baptisma , being  Greek  words,  are, 

1 In  these  two  statements  all  Baptists  agree.  As  to  a proper  adminis- 
trator, there  is  some  difference  of  opinion,  f By  a proper  administrator^) 
in  the  above  definition, (is  meant  a person  who  has  received  authority 
from  a scriptural  church  to  administer  baptism.  It  does  not  comport 
with  my  design  to  enlarge  on  this  pomt. 

342 


BAPTISM . 


343 


in  the  Common  Version  of  the  Scriptures,  anglicized , but 
not  translated.  By  this  it  is  meant  that  their  termination 
is  made  to  correspond  with  the  termination  of  English 
words.  In  baptizo,  the  final  letter  is  changed  into  e;  and 
in  baptism, a,  the  last  letter  is  dropped  altogether.  To 
make  this  matter  of  anglicism  plain,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  say  that  if  the  Greek  verb  rantizo  had  been  anglicized, 
we  should  have  rantize  in  the  New  Testament  where  we 
now  have  sprinkle p King  James  I.  of  England,  by  whose 
order  the  Common  Version  was  made  in  the  year  1611, 
virtually  forbade  the  translation  of  baptize  and  baptism . 
This  has  been  sometimes  denied,  but  it  is  susceptible  of 
conclusive  proof.  The  king’s  third  instruction  to  his 
translators  reads  thus:  “ The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be 
kept,  as  the  word  church  not  to  be  translated  ‘ congrega- 
tion.’ ” It  is  absurd  to  say  that  this  rule  had  exclusive 
reference  to  the  word  “ church,”  for  this  term  is  plainly 
given  as  a specimen  of  u old  ecclesiastical  words.”  Why 
should  plurality  of  idea  be  conveyed  by  the  phrase 
“ ecclesiastical  words”  if  the  rule  had  respect  to  but  one 
word?  The  question,  then,  is,  Are  baptism  and  baptize 
“ old  ecclesiastical  words”?  They  were  words  when  the 
Bible  was  translated  or  they  would  ndt  be  found  in  it. 
They  had  been  used  by  church  historians  and  by  writers 
on  ecclesiastical  law,  and  were  therefore  ecclesiastical.  They 
had  been  in  use  a long  time,  and  were  consequently  old. 
They  were  “ old  ecclesiastical  words.”  Such  words  the 
king  commanded  “to  be  kept,”  “not  translated.”  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  too,  that  the  Bishop  of  London  at 
the  king’s  instance,  wrote  to  the  translators,  reminding 
them  that  His  Majesty  “ wished  his  third  and  fourth  rule 
to  be  specially  observed.”  This  circumstance  must  liave 
called  special  attention  to  the  rule  under  consideration. 
In  view  of  these  facts,  it  may,  surely,  be  said  that  the 


344 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


translators  knew  what  were  “old  ecclesiastical  v*ords.” 
Let  their  testimony,  then,  be  adduced  : In  their  “ Preface 
to  the  Reader  ” they  say  that  they  had,  “ on  the  one  side, 
avoided  the  scrupulosity  of  the  Puritans,  who  left  the 
old  ecclesiastical  %vords  and  betook  them  to  other,  as  when 
they  put  washing  for  baptism , and  congregation  for  church ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  had  shunned  the  obscurity  of  the 
Papists.”  Is  not  this  enough  ? Here  there  is*  not  only 
an  admission  that  baptism  was  an  old  ecclesiastical 
word,  but  this  admission  is  made  by  the  translators 
themselves — made  most  cheerfully — for  it  was  made  in 
condemnation  of  the  Puritans  and  in  commendation  of 
themselves. 

The  king’s  fourth  rule  was  this : “ When  any  word 
hath  divers  significations,  that  to  be  kept  which  hath 
been  most  commonly  used  by  the  most  eminent  Fathers, 
being  agreeable  to  the  propriety  of  the  place  and  the 
analogy  of  faith.” 

Baptizo  is  not  a word  of  divers  significations ; but  if  it 
were,  the  king’s  translators,  if  they  had  translated  it  at 
all,  would  have  been  compelled  by  the  fourth  rule  to 
render  it  immerse ; for  every  man  of  ordinary  intelligence 
knows  that  it  was  “ most  commonly  used  ” in  this  sense 
“ by  the  most  eminent  Fathers.”  But  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  king’s  third  rule  makes  inoperative  the  fourth , so 
far  as  old  ecclesiastical  words  are  concerned.  Whether 
such  words  have  one  meaning  or  a thousand  meanings, 
they  are  “ to  be  kept,”  “ not  translated.”  The  transla- 
tors were  not  at  liberty  to  refer  to  the  signification  always 
attached  by  the  Greeks  to  baptizo — a signification  which 
received  the  cordial  endorsement  of  “ the  most  eminent 
Fathers.”  They  might  have  examined  the  endorsement 
if  the  royal  decree  had  not  said,  “ Hitherto,  but  no  far- 
ther”— “the  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept.” 


BAPTISM. 


345 


Some  Baptist  authors  have  expressed  themselves  as  if 
King  James  had  a special  antipathy  to  immersion,  and 
forbade  the  translation  of  baptize  and  baptism  with  a view 
to  encourage  sprinkling , which  had  been  introduced  from 
Geneva  into  Scotland  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and  was  in 
the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  making  its  way 
into  England.  There  is,  so  far  as  I know,  no  historical 
evidence  that  the  king  was  opposed  to  immersion;  but 
he  was  bitterly  opposed  to  the  “ Genevan  Version”  of  the 
Bible,  in  which  baptism  was  rendered  washing.  Most 
probably  his  dislike  of  this  version  led  him  to  give  his 
third  rule.  The  Genevan  Version  was  made  by  exiles 
from  Scotland,  who  during  the  reign  of  “ Bloody  Mary  ” 
fled  to  Geneva  and  became  acquainted  with  John  Calvin.1 

The  fact  that  baptize  is  an  anglicized,  and  not  a trans- 
lated, word  makes  an  appeal  to  Greek  lexicons  necessary 
in  ascertaining  its  meaning.  Lexicons  do  not  constitute 
the  ultimate  authority,  but  their  testimony  is  very  valu- 
able. There  is  a remarkable  unanimity  among  them  in 
representing  immerse , or  its  equivalent,  as  the  primary 
and  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word.  On  this  point  Pro- 
fessor Moses  Stuart,  for  many  years  the  chief  glory  of  the 
Andover  Theological  Seminary,  shall  speak.  In  his  trea- 
tise on  the  Mode  of  Baptism , page  14,  he  says : u Bapto 
and  baptizo  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerge  into  anything 
liquid.  All  lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note  are 
agreed  in  this.”  This  quotation  is  made  to  supersede  the 
necessity  of  giving  the  meaning  of  baptizo  as  furnished  by 
Greek  lexicons,  of  which  there  is  a large  number.  Pro- 
fessor Stuart’s  testimony  will  be  received. 

2.  Distinguished  Pedobaptist  theologians  concede  that  baptizo 

1 The  extracts  I have  made  concerning  the  king’s  rules,  etc.  may  be 
verified  by  reference  to  Lewis’  History  of  Translations , pp.  317,  319, 

326. 


346 


CHIU  ST  I A N DOCTRINES. 


means  to  immerse.  John  Calvin,  in  his  Institutes , says  : “ But 
whether  the  person  who  is  baptized  be  wholly  immersed, 
and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or  whether  water  be  only 
poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no  importance ; 
cl  lurches  ought  to  be  left  at  liberty,  in  this  respect,  to  act 
according  to  the  difference  of  countries.  |fThe  very  word 
baptize , however,  signifies  to  immerse  ; j and  it  is  certain 
that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church.”1 

We  have  here  some  of  Calvin’s  opinions,  but  what  con- 
cerns us  is  his  positive  testimony  as  to  the  meaning  of 
baptize. 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  a distinguished  Presbyterian  of 
Scotland,  in  his  notes  on  Matt.  iii.  11,  says : “ The  word 
baptizein  [infinitive  mode  of  baptizo\  both  in  sacred  au- 
thors and  in  classical,  signifies  to  dip , to  plunge , to  immerse , 
and  was  rendered  by  Tertullian,  the  oldest  of  the  Latin 
Fathers,  tingere , the  term  used  for  dyeing  cloth,  which 
was  by  immersion.  It  is  always  construed  suitably  to 
this  meaning.” 

Dr.  Chalmers,  in  his  Lectures  on  Romans , says  : “ The 
original  meaning  of  the  word  baptism  is  immersion  ; and 
though  wTe  regard  it  as  a point  of  indifferency  whether 
the  ordinance  so  named  be  performed  in  this  way  or  by 
sprinkling,  yet  we  doubt  not  that  the  prevalent  style  of 
the  administration  in  the  apostles’  days  wTas  by  an  actual 
submerging  of  the  whole  body  under  water.  W e advert 
to  this  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  light  on  the  analogy 
that  is  instituted  in  these  verses.  Jesus  Christ,  by  death, 
underwent  this  sort  of  baptism — even  immersion  undei 
the  surface  of  the  ground,  whence  he  soon  emerged  again 
by  his  resurrection.  We  by  being  baptized  into  his  death 
are  conceived  to  have  made  a similar  translation.” 2 

1 Vol.  ii.  *«).  491,  edition  of  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication. 

? Lectur  xxx.,  on  chap.  vi.  3-7. 


BAPTISM 


<i47 

This  is  but  a specimen  of  the  concessions  of  learned 
Pedodaptists  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  baptizo.  These 
concessions  are  of  great  value,  for  it  may  be  said,  in  the 
language  of  another,  “ This  testimony  of  theirs  to  me  is 
worth  a thousand  others,  seeing  it  comes  from  such  as  in 
my  opinion  are  evidently  interested  to  speak  quite  otherwise .” 
Who  will  testify  to  that  which  condemns  his  own  practice, 
unless  compelled  by  the  force  of  truth  to  do  so? 

3.  The  classical  usage  of  baptizo  establishes  the  position  that 
immersion  is  the  baptismal  act.  It  has  been  already  stated 
that  lexicons  are  not  the  ultimate  authority*  in  settling  the 
meaning  of  words.  Lexicographers  are  dependent  on  the 
sense  in  which  words  are  used  to  ascertain  their  meaning. 
But  it  is  not  impossible  for  them  to  mistake  that  sense. 
If  they  do,  there  is  an  appeal  from  their  definitions  to 
usage , which  is  the  ultimate  authority.  It  is  wrell  to  go 
back  to  the  ultimate  authority.  Want  of  room  forbids 
the  insertion  of  extracts  from  classical  Greek  authors,  but 
it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  treatise  of  Professor 
Stuart  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism.  The  reader  will  see 
that  the  learned  professor,  in  proving  that  baptizo  means 
immerse,  gives  the  word  as  used  by  various  Greek  au- 
thors— namely,  Pindar,  Heraclides  Ponticus,  Plutarch, 
Lucian,  Hippocrates,  Strabo,  Josephus,  etc.  Dr.  Conant 
has  investigated  the  meaning  of  baptizo  much  more  ex- 
haustively than  Professor  Stuart.  No  use  is  made  of  his 
learned  work,  because  Pedobaptist  testimony  is  preferred. 
Seven  hundred  years  intervened  between  the  birth  of 
Pindar  and  the  death  of  Lucian.  During  those  seven 
centuries  usage  shows  that  baptizo  meant  to  immerse. 
Most  of  the  classic  Greek  writers  lived  before  baptism 
was  instituted,  and  consequently  knew  nothing  of  im- 
mersion as  a religious  ordinance.  Those  who  lived  aftex 
its  institution  cared  nothing  for  it.  There  was  no  con- 


348 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


troversy  as  to  the  meaning  of  baptizo  during  the  classic 
period  of  Grecian  history.  There  was  no  motive,  there- 
fore, that  could  so  operate  on  Greek  writers  as  to  induce 
them  to  use  the  word  in  any  but  its  authorized  meaning. 
That  meaning  was  most  'obviously  to  immerse. 

It  is  said  by  some  that,  though  baptizo  in  classic  Greek 
means  immerse , it  has  a different  meaning  in  the  New 
Testament.  Let  them  prove  it.  On  them  is  the  burden 
of  proof,  and  they  will  find  it  a burden  indeed.  Let 
every  man  who  takes  this  view  answer  this  question : 
Could  the  New  Testament  writers,  as  honest  men , use 
baptizo  in  a new  sense  without  notifying  their  readers 
of  the  fact?  It  is  certain  that  they  could  not,  and 
equally  certain  that  no  such  notification  was  ever 
given. 

4.  The  symbolic  import  of  baptism  furnishes  a conclusive 
argument  in  favor  of  immersion . There  is  in  baptism  a rep- 
resentation of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Paul  says,  “ Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death? 
Therefore  we  were  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death ; that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness 
of  his  resurrection  ” (Rom,  vi.  .3-51;  “ Buried  with  him  in 
baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God  who  raised  him  from  the 
dead.”  Col.  ii.  12.  Peter  says,  “The  like  figure  whereunto 
even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  (not  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a good  con- 
science toward  God),  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.” 
1 Pet.  iii.  21. 

It  is  clear  from  these  passages  that  baptism  has  a com- 


BAPTISM. 


349 


memorative  reference  to  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ.  The  two  ordinances  of  the  gospel  symbolically 
proclaim  the  three  great  facts  of  the  gospel.  These  facts, 
as  Paul  teaches  (1  Cor.  xv.  3,  4),  are  that  Christ  died,  was 
1 juried,  and  rose^agqjn.  The  Lord’s  Supper  commemo- 
rates the  first  fact.  At  his  table  the  disciples  of  Jesus  aie 
solemnly  reminded  that  he,  for  their  sakes,  submitted  to 
the  agonies  of  death.  They  weep  over  him  as  crucified. 
dead.  In  baptism  they  see  him  buried  and  raised  again} 
just  as  they  see  him  dead  in  the  sacred  Supper.  Baptism 
is  therefore  a symbolic  proclamation  of  two  of  the  three 
prominent  facts  of  the  gospel — the  burial  and  resurrection 
of  Christ. 

Baptism  also  expresses,  in  emblem,  the  believer’s  death 
to  sin  and  resurrection  to  newness  of  life.  In  u repentance 
toward  God  and  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ” there 
is  a spiritual  death  to  sin  and  a spiritual  resurrection  to  a 
new  life.)  These  two  facts  are  emblematically  set  forth  in 
baptism.  Hence  the  absurdity  of  baptizing  any  who  are 
not  dead  to  sin.  We  are  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ. 
We  profess  our  reliance  on  him,  in  his  atoning  death,  for 
salvation,  and  we  profess  also  that  as  he  died  for  sin,  we 
have  died  to  sin.  As  burial  is  a palpable  separation  of  the 
dead  from  the  living,  so  baptism  is  a symbolic  separation 
of  those  dead  to  sin  from  those  living  in  sin  ^ and  as  a 
resurrection  from  the  dead  indicates  an  entrance  into  a 
new  sphere  of  existence,  so  baptism,  in  its  similitude  to  a 
resurrection,  denotes  an  entrance  upon  a new  life^)  Dr. 
Chalmers,  therefore,  in  the  lecture  already  referred  to, 
6ays  that  we  “ are  conceived  in  the  act  of  descending 
under  the  water  of  baptism  to  have  resigned  an  old  life, 
arnf  in  the  act  of  ascending  to  emerge  into  a second  or 
new  life.” 

Baptism  is  likewise  a symbol  of  remission  of  sins  and 
30 


350 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


of  moral  purification.  We  read  of  being  baptized  ufoi 
the  remission  of  sins.”  Acts  ii.  38.  The  remission  surely 
is  not  actual,  but  symbolic  and  formal.  That  baptism 
symbolizes  purification  is  evident  from  Acts  xxii.  16: 
“ And  now  why  tarriest  thou  ? arise,  and  be  baptized, 
and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord.”  Sin  is  referred  to  as  that  which  defiles.  “ Wash 
away  thy  sins.”  How?  literally?  No,  but  symbolically. 
The  blood  of  Jesus  really  washes  away  sins.  Hence  the 
language  “ washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood.” 
Rev.  i.  5.  But  the  sins  which  the  blood  of  Jesus  has 
really  washed  away  are  symbolically  and  formally 
washed  away  in  baptism. 

Once  more:  Baptism  anticipates  the  believer’s  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.  This  we  learn  from  1 Cor.  xv.  29 : 
“ Else  what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead, 
if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  Why  are  they  then  baptized 
for  the  dead?”  These  questions  are  proposed  in  the 
midst  of  an  argument  on  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
Some  of  the  Corinthians,  it  seems,  denied  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection,  yet  it  does  not  appear  that  they  ques- 
tioned the  propriety  of  an  observance  of  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  Paul  virtually  tells  them  that  baptism 
has  an  anticipatory  reference  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
saints.  It  has  this  reference  because  it  has  a commemo- 
rative reference  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  It  antici- 
pates because  it  commemorates.  The  reason  is  obvious. 
The  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus  procures  the  resur- 
rection of  his  followers,  and  is  an  infallible  pledge  of 
it.  The  two  resurrections  are  inseparable.  Baptism, 
therefore,  while  it  commemorates  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  anticipates,  of  necessity,  the  resurrection  of  hia 
followers. 

Now,  if  these  views  of  the  symbolic  import  of  baptism 


BAPTISM. 


351 


are  correct,  it  follows  inevitably  that  the  immersion  in 
water  of  a believer  in  Christ  is  essential  to  baptism — so 
essential  that  there  can  be  no  baptism  without  it.  If 
baptism  represents  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
it  must  be  immersion.  If  it  sets  forth  in  emblem  the 
believer’s  death  to  sin  and  resurrection  to  a new  life,  it 
must  be  immersion.  If  it  in  symbol  remits  and  washes 
away  the  sins  which  Christ  has  really  washed  away  in 
his  blood,  still  it  must  be  immersion.  If  it  anticipates 
the  resurrection,  nothing  but  immersion  justifies  the  an- 
ticipation. We  are  “buried  by  baptism” — that  is,  by 
means  of  baptism.  When  the  baptismal  process  takes 
place  there  is  certainly  a burial.  The  two  are  insepara- 
ble, and  therefore  where  there  is  no  burial  there  is  no 
baotism.1 

II.  The  Subjects  of  Baptism. 

While  the  import  of  the  word  “ baptize  ” indicates  what 
is  the  baptismal  act,  it  does  not  determine  who  are  to  be 
baptized.  We  must  therefore  look  elsewhere  than  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  to  ascertain  who  are  scriptural  sub- 
jects of  baptism.  Where  shall  we  look?  Evidently  to 
the  commission  given  by  Christ  to  his  apostles,  for  this 
commission  is  the  supreme  authority  for  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism.  Apart  from  it  there  is  no  authority  to 
baptize.  The  circumstances  connected  with  the  giving 
of  this  commission  were  replete  with  interest.  The  Sa- 
viour had  finished  the  work  which  he  came  down  from 
heaven  to  accomplish.  He  had  offered  himself  a sacri- 

1 Other  considerations  in  favor  of  immersion  might  be  presented,  sug- 
gested by  the  places  selected  for  the  administration  of  baptism  and  the 
circumstances  attending  its  administration,  but  the  limits  of  this  vol- 
ume forbid.  The  reader  is  referred  to  the  many  books  that  treat  of 

baptism. 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


362 


fice  for  sin.  He  had  exhausted  the  cup  of  atoning  sor« 
row.  He  had  lain  in  the  dark  mansions  of  the  grave 
He  had  risen  in  triumph  from  the  dead,  and  was  about  to 
ascend  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high.  In- 
vested with  perfect  mediatorial  authority,  he  said  to  his 
^nostles : 


” All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
Oo  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ; teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
have  commanded  you”  (Matt,  xxviii.  18-20) “Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture. He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ; 
but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned  ” (Mark  xvi. 
15,  16);  “Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behoved  Christ 
to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day ; and 
that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached 
in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem.” 
Luke  xxiv.  46,  47. 

Surely  the  language  of  this  commission  is  plain.  Mat- 
thew informs  us  that  making  disciples  (for  the  word 
translated  “ teach  ” means  to  make  disciples)  is  to  pre- 
cede baptism  ; Mark  establishes  the  priority  of  faith  to 
baptism  ; and  Luke  connects  repentance  and  remission 
of  sins  with  the  execution  of  the  commission,  f No  man 
can,  in  obedience  to  this  commission,  baptize  an  unbe- 
liever or  an  unconscious  infant.  The  unbeliever  is  not  a 
penitent  disciple,  and  it  is  clearly  impossible  for  the  in- 
fant to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel. 

It  may  be  laid  down  as  a principle  of  common  sense 
which  commends  itself  to  every  candid  mind,  that. a com- 
mission  to  do  a thing  authorizes  only  the  doing  of  the 
thing  specified.  There  is  a maxim  of  law  to  the  effect 
that  “ the  expression  of  one  thing  is  the  exclusion  _qf 


BAPTISM. 


353 


Rnother.”  It  must  be  so,  for  otherwise  there  could  be  no 
definiteness  in  contracts  and  no  precision  in  legislative 
enactments  or  judicial  decrees.  This  maxim  may  be  il- 
lustrated in  a thousand  ways.  Numerous  scriptural  il- 
lustrations are  at  hand.  For  example:  God  commanded 
Noah  to  make  an  ark  of  gopher-wood . Gen.  vi.  14.  The 
command  forbade  the  use  of  any  other  kind  of  wood. 
Abraham  was  commanded  to  offer  his  son  Isaac  for  a 
burnt-offering.  Gen.  xxii.  2.  He  was  virtually  forbidden 
to  offer  any  other  member  of  his  family.  Ay,  more — he 
could  not  offer  an  animal  till  the  order  was  revoked  by 
him  who  gave  it,  and  a second  order  was  given  requiring 
the  sacrifice  of  a ram  in  the  place  of  Isaac.  The  institu- 
tion of  the  Passover  furnishes  an  illustration,  or  rather  a 
series  of  illustrations.  Ex.  xii.  A lamb  was  to  be  killed 
— not  a heifer ; it  was  to  be  of  the  first  year — not  of  the 
second  or  third ; a male — not  a female ; without  a blem- 
ish— not  with  a blemish ; on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
month — not  on  some  other  day ; the  blood  was  to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  door-posts  and  lintels — not  elsewhere^* 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  supplies  many 
illustrations,  one  only  of  which  will  be  mentioned.  It 
provides  that  “ the  President  shall  have  power,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make 
treaties,  provided  two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present  con- 
cur.” In  view  of  this  language,  can  any  man  believe  that 
the  Supreme  Court  and  the  House  of  Representatives  can 
make  treaties?  Or  that  the  President  without  the  Sen- 
ate, or  the  Senate  without  the  President,  can  mako 
treaties? 

In  application  of  the  principle  laid  down,  and  of  the  law- 
maxim  now  illustrated,  I may  say  that  the  commission  of 
Christ,  in  enjoining  the  baptism  of  disciples,  believers,  for- 
bids in  effect  the  baptism  of  all  others.  It  will  not  do  to 


Z54 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES, 


eay  that  we  are  not  forbidden,  in  so  many  words,  to  Lap* 
tize  infants.  The  same  may  be  said  of  unbelievers; 
ay,  of  horses,  cattle,  and  bells. 

Tt  will  be  said  by  those  who  oppose  the  views  of  Baptists 
- for  it  has  been  said  a thousand  times — that  if  infants 
are  not  to  be  baptized  because  they  cannot  believe,  they 
will  not  be  saved  because  they  cannot  believe.  If  the 
salvation  of  infants  depends  on  their  faith,  they  cannot 
be  saved.  They  are  incapable  of  faith.  They  are,  doubt- 
less, saved  through  the  mediation  of  Christ,  but  it  is  not 
by  faith.  Our  opponents  fail  to  accomplish  their  object 
in  urging  this  objection  to  our  views.  They  must  intend 
to  make  us  admit  the  propriety  of  infant  baptism  or  force 
us  to  deny  infant  salvation.  But  we  make  neither  the  ad- 
mission nor  the  denial.  When  we  say  that  infants  are 
saved,  not  by  faith,  but  without  faith,  their  objection  is 
demolished. 

In  considering  the  commission  of  Christ  it  is  well  to 
observe  how  it  was  understood  and  carried  into  effect  in 
apostolic  times.  (^The  first  practical  interpretation  of  it 
was  given  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Acts  ii.  The  gospel 
was  preached,  the  people  were  pierced  to  the  heart,  and 
cried  out,  u Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?”  Peter 
replied,  “ Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you.”  No 
man  will  say  that  the  command  “ repent”  is  applicable  to 
infants,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  same  persons  were  called 
on  to  repent  and  be  baptized.  The  result  of  Peter’s  ser- 
mon is  given  in  the  following  words  : u Then  they  that 
gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  : and  the  same 
day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand 
souls.”  ver.  41.  The  baptism  was  limited  to  those  whc 
gladly  received  Peter’s  words;  ard  as  infants  were  not  of 
that  number,  to  infer  that  they  were  baptized  is  utterly 
gratuitous.  The  Pentecostal  administration  of  baptisir 


BAPTISM. 


355 


shows  that  penitent  believers  were  considered  the  only 
subjects  of  the  ordinance. 

Philip’s  labors  in  Samaria  indicate  his  understanding 
of  the  great  commission.  He  preached  Christ  to  the  peo- 
ple. What  then?  The  people  “believed  Philip  preach- 
ing the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ.”  What  next?  “They  were  bap- 
tized both  men  and  women.”  Acts  viii.  12.  Llere,  again, 
baptism  was  restricted  to  believers. 

Was  there  a deviation  from  this  rule  among  the  Gen- 
tiles ? Certainly  not.  When  Peter  preached  to  Cornelius 
and  his  family  there  was  a restriction  of  baptism  to  those 
who  received  the  Holy  Spirit ; and  when  Paul  preached 
in  Corinth  “many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed, 
and  were  baptized.”  Acts  x.  47 ; xviii.  8. 

Thus  it  appears  that  among  Gentiles,  as  well  as  Samari- 
tans and  Jews,  baptism  was  preceded  by  faith  in  Christ. 
The  commission  was  practically  expounded  in  the  same 
way  both  in  Europe  and  Asia. 

Nor  do  the  household  baptisms  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament  furnish  any  argument  against  the  baptism  of 
believers  alone,  for  something  is  said  of  every  household 
which  could  not  be  said  of  unconscious  infants.  For  ex- 
ample, it  is  said  of  Cornelius  (Acts  x.  2)  that  he  “feared 
God  with  all  his  house ;”  of  the  jailer  (Acts  xvi.  32,  34), 
that  Paul  and  Silas  “spoke  to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,”  and  that  he  “rejoiced, 
believing  in  God  with  all  his  house.”  It  is  said  of  Lydia 
(Acts  xvi.  40)  that  Paul  and  Silas,  having  been  released 
from  prison,  entered  into  her  house,  “and  when  they  had 
seen  the  brethren  they  comforted  them.”  Doubtless,  “ the 
brethren  ” were  persons  in  Lydia’s  employ  who  consti- 
tuted her  “ household,”  and  were  baptized  as  well  as  her- 
self. Infants  would  not  have  been  referred  to  as  “ breth- 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


356 


ren  ” nor  as  “ comforted.'”  The  intimation,  in  Acts  xviii 
8,  is  that  the  family  of  Crispus  was  baptized,  but  it  is 
said,  that  “ he  believed  on  th&  Lord  with  all  his  house.” 
Paul,  as  we  learn  from  1 Cor.  i.  16,  baptized  the  household 
of  Stephanas,  but  he  says  in  the  same  Epistle  (xvi.  15), 
“ Ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that  it  is  the  first-fruits 
of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints.”  These  are  all  the  household 
baptisms  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  and  we  see 
in  them  no  deviation  from  the  commission  of  Christ, 
which  requires  discipleship  as  a prerequisite  to  baptism. 
On  the  other  hand,  they  confirm)  the  position^that  be- 
lievers alone  are  scriptural  subjects  of  baptism^ 

In  closing  this  chapter,  which  might  be  lengthened 
almost  indefinitely may  say  that  the  allusions  to  bap- 
tism in  the  apostolic  Epistles  forbid  the  supposition  that 
infants  were  baptized.  The  baptized  are  referred  to  as 
“ dead  to  sin,”  rising  from  the  baptismal  waters  to  “ walk 
in  newness  of  life,”  “ having  put  on  Christ,”  “ baptized  for 
the  dead,”  or  in  the  belief  of  the  resurrection.  Rom.  vi. 
11,  4;  Gal.  iii.  27  ; f Cor.  xv.  29.  Not  one  of  these  forms 
of  expression  can  be  applied  to  speechless  infants.  More- 
over, baptism  is  defined  to  be  “ the  answer  of  a good  con- 
science toward  God.”  1 Pet.  iii.  21.  This  is  a definition 
which  precludes  the  idea  that  baptism  was,  in  apostolic 
times,  administered  to  any  except  accountable  agents. 
What  conscience  has  an  infant?  There  can  be  no 
operation  of  consqenpe  prior  to  accountability.  Bap- 
tism, then,  in  its  administration  to  unconscious  babes, 
cannot  be  what  an  inspired  apostle  declares  it  to  be. 

Without  enlarging  on  these  topics,  what  is  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  whole  matter?  Clearly  this:  The  commission 
of  Christ,  as  understood  and  exemplified  in  the  apostolic 
age,  requires  the  baptism  of  believers,  disciples ; and  the 


BAPTISM. 


357 


baptism  of  all  others,  whether  unbelievers  or  unconscious 
infants,  is  utterly  unwarranted.  j^There  is,  as  Paul  has 
written  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  “ one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism.”  ch.  iv.  5.  The  one  Lord  is  the  ob- 
ject of  the  one  faith,  the  one  faith  embraces  the  one 
Lord,  and  the  one  baptism  is  a profession  of  the  one 
faith  in  the  one  Lord^ 

The  baptism  onie  m the  action  hw  >lved,  and  one  in 
the  subjects  of  the  action.  I can  see  it  in  no  other 
light. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

THE  LORD'S  SUPPER . 

What  Paul  says  of  the  institution  and  design  cf  the 
Lord’s  Supper  is  the  substance  of  what  the  evangelists 
had  recorded.  These  are  his  words : u For  I have  re- 
ceived of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I delivered  to  you, 
That  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same  night  in  which  he  was  be- 
trayed took  bread : and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he 
brake  it,  and  said,  Take,  eat : this  is  my  body  which  is 
broken  for  you:  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After 
the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had 
supped,  saying,  This  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood : 
this  do  ye,  as  often  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me. 
For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do 
show  the  Lord’s  death  till  he  come.”  1 Cor.  xi.  23-26. 

From  this  inspired  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper  it  is  plainly  a commemorative  ordinance.  It  is  a 
memorial  service.  It  commemorates  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  nothing  else.  “Ye  do  show  the  Lord’s  death.”  We 
do  not  show  the  birth  or  baptism  or  burial  or  resurrection 
or  ascension  of  our  Redeemer,  but  his  death . If  ever  the 
tragedy  of  Calvary  should  engross  the  thoughts  of  the 
Christian  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other  topic,  it  is  when 
he  sits  at  the  table  of  the  Lord.  Then  the  death  of  his 
Saviour  should  occupy  all  his  thoughts,  monopolize  all  the 
power  of  his  memory. 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


359 


Some  will  perhaps  say  that  in  the  Lord’s  Supper  we 
express  our  Christian  fellowship  for  our  fellow-communi- 
cants. This  is  done  only  in  an  indirect  and  incidental 
manner. /^Our  communion,  according  to  the  teaching  of 
Paul,  is  the  communion  of  the  body  and  the  blood  of 
Christ.  It  is  a solemn  celebration  of  his  atoning  death 
The  broken  bread  is  the  emblem  of  the  Saviour’s  broken 
body;  for  he  said,  “Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.”  He 
manifestly  used  language  as  he  had  done  in  his  ministry. 
He  had  said,  in  explaining  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  “The 
seed  is  the  word  of  God”  (Luke  viii.  11);  and  in  inter- 
preting the  parable  of  the  Wheat  and  Tares,  “ The  field  is 
the  world.”  Matt.  xiii.  38.  He  meant,  “ The  seed  represents 
the  word  of  God  ” — “ The  field  represents  the  world.”  So 
when  he  said  of  the  bread  which  he  held  in  his  hands, 
“ This  is  my  body,”  he  meant,  “ This  represents  my  bodyJJ' 
The  Romish  view,  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed 
into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  is  utterly  indefen- 
sible ; as  is  also  the  Lutheran  view,  that  “ the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  materially  present  in  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  though  in  an  incomprehensible 
manner.” 

The  Romish  theory  is  called  “ transubstantiation,”  and 
the  Lutheran  dogma  is  styled  “ consubstantiation,”  neither 
of  which  has  a rational  claim  to  credence.  The  bread 
used  in  the  supper  of  the  Lord  is  bread  before  it  is  put 
on  his  table,  it  is  bread  while  on  the  table,  and  it  is  bread 
when  eaten.  There  is  no  sense  in  which  it  is  the  body 
of  Christ,  except  the  figurative  sense  in  which  it  represents 
his  body.  So  also  of  the  wine  which  represents  his  blood. 
The  bread  and  the  wine  are  impressive,  striking  emblems, 
but  they  are  only  emblems.  They  are  solemn  mementos 
of  the  Saviour’s  crucified  body  and  of  his  shed  blood. 
They  are  memorials  of  his  death,  designed  to  perpetuate 


360 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES 


a remembrance  of  the  greatest  event  which  has  ever 
taken  place  in  the  universe.  It  is  to  be  deeply  regretted 
that  many  persons  entertain  viewTs  of  the  Lord’s  Supper 
which,  to  say  the  least,  do  in  a great  degree  ignore  the 
purpose  of  its  original  appointment.  It  seems  to  be 
regarded  as  a suitable  way  for  Christians  to  express  their 
opinion  of  each  other’s  piety.  Some  appear  even  to  think 
that  the  Lord’s  Table  is  the  proper  place  for  those  to  come 
together  who  are  allied  by  ties  of  blood  or  ties  of  mar- 
riage. Alas,  that  opinions  so  dishonorable  to  Christ 
should  be  held  by  any  who  profess  to  be  his  disciples! 
The  important  truth  should  echo  and  re-echo  throughout 
Christendom,  that  the  Lord’s  Supper  is  a memorial  ser- 
vice— that  the  central  idea  in  its  observance  is  the 
commemoration  of  Christ’s  death.  This  must  never  be 
forgotten. 

By  whom  is  the  Lord’s  Supper  to  be  observed  ? We 
answer,  the  members  of  a visible  church  of  Christ. 
That  is  to  say,  it  is  a church  ordinance.  It  cannot  be 
properly  administered  to  persons  in  their  individual 
capacity — for  example,  to  the  sick  at  their  homes.  The 
meeting  of  a church  is  indispensable  to  a scriptural  obser- 
vance of  the  solemn  rite.  As  none  can  be  members  of  a 
visible  church  without  baptism,  it  follows  that  baptism 
is  a prerequisite  to  the  Lord’s  Table.  It  will  be  seen 
from  this  statement  of  the  case  that  baptism  is  a pre- 
requisite to  the  Lord’s  Supper,  because  it  is  a prerequisite 
to  church  membership.  It  is  a condition  precedent,  in 
the  sense  that  it  precedes,  and  is  essential  to,  church  mem- 
bership It  would  be  well  for  Baptists  to  make  this  view 
more  prominent.  Let  them  not  say  less  of  baptism,  but 
more  of  church  membership.  In  Acts  ii.  41  it  is  said, 
u Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized : 
and  the  same  day  there  wera  added  to  them  about  three 


THE  LORD’S  SUPPER, 


361 


thousand  souls.”  The  three  thousand  were,  no  doubt, 
added  to  the  church,  “ the  hundred  and  twenty  disciples,” 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter;  for  in  the  last  verse 
of  the  second  chapter  it  is  written,  “ And  the  Lord  added 
to  the  church  daily  the  saved.”  The  adding  in  the  two 
verses  was  the  same  in  kind ; that  is,  it  was  an  adding 
to  the  church.  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  baptized  were 
added  to  the  church,  and  that  this  was  done  before  the 
u breaking  of  bread  ” — a phrase  descriptive  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper.  A refusal  on  the  part  o/  Baptists  to  unite  in  the 
Lord’s  Supper  writh  Pedobaptists  grows  out  of  the  fact 
that  the  latter  have  ever  been  considered  by  the  former 
as  unbaptized,  and  consequently  without  a scriptural 
church  membership. 

Even  the  celebrated  Robert  Hall,  wrho  advocated  the 
joint  participation  of  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  with  an 
eloquence  and  an  energy  of  argumentation  rarely  to  be 
found  in  the  annals  of  controversy,  does  not  hesitate  to 
express  the  opinion  that  Pedobaptists  are  unbaptized. 
He  says : 

“We  certainly  make  no  scruple  of  informing  a Pedo- 
baptist  candidate  that  we  consider  him  as  unbaptized, 
and  disdain  all  concealment  on  the  subject.”  Again,  “ If 
we  join  with  those  whom  we  are  obliged  to  consider  as 
unbaptized,  the}^  unite  with  persons  who,  in  their  judg- 
ment, repeat  an  ordinance  which  ought  not  to  be 
performed  but  once,  nullify  a Christian  institute,  and 
deprive  their  children  of  the  benefit  of  a salutary 
nte.” 1 

But  while  Mr.  Hall  considered  Pedobaptists  unbaptized, 
he  insisted  on  their  right  as  unbaptized  persons  to  come  to 
the  Lord’s  Table.  He  did  not  admit  baptism  to  be  a pre- 
requisite to  the  Lord’s  Table.  Had  he  conceded  this,— a 
1 Works , vol.  i.  pp.  455,  456. 


31 


362 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


point  almost  universally  conceded  by  Baptists  and  Pedo* 
baptists, — he  would  not  have  written  his  Terms  of  Com* 
munion  at  all. 

To  give  a summary  answer  to  all  that  Robert  Hall  ever 
wrote  in  favor  of  “mixed  communion,”  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  show  the  scriptural  priority  of  baptism  to  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  It  surely  is  not  difficult  to  do  this.  That 
baptism  was  first  instituted  is  a significant  fact.  No  one 
will  deny  that  John,  the  harbinger  of  Christ,  baptized 
multitudes,  and  that  J&sus  through  his  disciples  (John 
iv.  1,  2)  baptized  before  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper.  It  is  morally  certain  that  those  present  at  its 
institution,  the  night  of  the  betrayal,  had  been  baptized. 
Jesus  himself  had  been  baptized,  and  it  is  too  much  for 
credulity  itself  to  believe  that  he  selected  unbaptized  per- 
sons as  his  apostles.  Does  the  subsequence  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  in  its  original  appointment,  to  baptism  mean 
nothing?  But  it  was  said  by  Mr.  Hall,  that  “John’s 
baptism  was  not  Christian.”  It  was  gospel  baptism.  It 
was  not  an  ordinance  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  John 
certainly  introduced  the  gospel  dispensation.  His 
preaching  was  “ the  beginning  of  the  gospel  ” (Mark 
i.  1),  and  “the  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John.” 
Luke  xvi.  16.  If  any  one  chooses  to  deny  that  his  bap- 
tism wras  Christian  because  it  is  not  so  termed,  the  denial 
may  be  so  enlarged  as  to  embrace  all  the  baptisms  of  the 
New  Testament;  for  tne  epithet  “Christian”  is  not  ap- 
plied to  any  of  them.  But  while  firmly  believing  that 
John’s  was  a gospel  ministry  and  a gospel  baptism,  all 
this  might  be  waived  by  Baptists  for  argument’s  sake, 
and  then  they  can  show  the  unavoidable  priority  of 
baptism  to  the  Lord’s  Supper.  Let  them  go  at  once  to 
Christ’s  last  commission : “ Go,  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them/’  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Every  scholar  knows 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


363 


tlmt  the  Greek  word  translated  “teach  ’ means  disciple. 
or  make  disciples.  Disciples  to  Christ  were  to  be  made 
through  the  preaching  and  teaching  of  the  apostle^. 
This  is  plain.  The  discipling  process  was  first,  and 
then  the  baptismal  act  was  to  be  performed.  “ Go,  dis- 
ciple all  nations,  baptizing  them.”  Now,  according  to 
this  commission,  it  is  evident  that  the  process  of  disci- 
pleship  is  to  be  followed  so  immediately  by  the  admin- 
istration of  baptism  as  to  leave  no  room  for  an  observ- 
ance of  the  Lord’s  Supper  to  intervene.  Baptism  is  the 
first  thing  after  a person  is  discipled  to  Christ.  It  is  the 
believer’s  first  public  duty.  It  is  an  open  avowal  of  faith 
in  Christ  and  of  allegiance  to  him.  It  is,  therefore,  inev- 
itably prior  to  the  Lord’s  Supper,  an  observance  of  which 
is  no  doubt  included  in  the  expression,  “Teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I have  commanded  you.” 
Matt,  xxviii.  20.  The  baptized  disciples  of  Christ  are  to 
be  taught  to  observe  all  things  which  he  has  commanded, 
and  under  his  commission  his  ministers  are  not  required 
to  say  anything  to  the  unbaptized  about  the  Lord’s  Sup- 
per. The  baptized  disciples  are  to  be  instructed.  How, 
then,  can  the  Lord’s  Supper  precede  baptism  when  the 
commission  enjoins  the  mention  of  it  only  to  the  bap- 
tized ? 

But  how  did  the  apostles  understand  and  carry  into 
effect  this  commission?  This  is  a question  of  capital 
importance  in  this  discussion.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
Peter  said  to  the  convicted  Jews,  “ Repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized.” Acts  ii.  38.  The  baptism  was  to  succeed  the  re- 
pentance. There  is  no  intimation  that  the  Lord’s  Sup- 
per was  to  come  between ; and  it  is  added,  that  the  bap- 
tized “ continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostles’  doctrine  and 
fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers.” 
Acts  ii.  42.  The  breaking  of  bread — the  Lord’s  Suppei 


364 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


—was  preceded  by  baptism.  When  Philip  went  down 
to  Samaria  and  preached,  the  people  believed  and  were 
baptized  both  men  and  women.”  Acts  viii.  12.  The 
narrative  plainly  indicates  that  baptism,  and  not  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  immediately  followed  a belief  of  Philip’s 
preaching.  When  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  avowed  his 
faith  in  Christ,  Philip  at  once  baptized  him.  There  was 
no  celebration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  before  they  left  the 
chariot  and  “went  down  both  into  the  water.”  Acts  viii. 
38.  When  Cornelius  and  his  family  received  the  Holy 
Spirit,  Peter  did  not  ask,  “ Who  can  forbid  their  coming 
to  the  Lord’s  Table  ?”  but  “ Can  any  man  forbid  water, 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized?”  Acts  x.  47.  When 
Paul  and  Silas,  at  the  hour  of  midnight,  preached  to  the 
jailer  and  his  house,  and  they  believed,  what  was  then 
done?  Did  they  come  to  the  Lord’s  Table?  No,  but 
“he  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway.”  Acts 
xvi.  33. 

* Thus  does  it  appear  that  the  men  who  first  acted  under 
the  commission  of  Christ  understood  it  as  enjoining  bap- 
tism before  the  Lord’s  Supper.  They  have  left  an  instruc- 
tive example,  which  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  disregard.  In 
view  of  this  example  it  may  be  boldly  affirmed  that  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament  indicates  the  priority 
of  baptism  to  the  commemoration  of  the  Redeemer’s 
death  at  his  table.  Nothing  is  plainer. 

Pedobaptists  concede  the  precedence  of  baptism  to  the 
Lord’s  Supper.  Indeed,  their  practice  of  infant  baptism 
extorts  the  concession  from  them. 

Dr.  Wall,  of  the  Church  of  England,  expresses  himself 
in  strong  terms  as  follows  : 

“ No  church  ever  gave  the  communion  to  any  persons 
before  they  were  baptized.  Among  all  the  absurdities 
that  ever  were  held,  none  ever  maintained  that  any  per* 


THE  LORE'S  SUPPER. 


365 


sons  should  partake  of  the  communion  before  they  were 
baptized.”  1 

Dr.  Doddridge,  Independent,  remarks : 

“It  is  certain  that  Christians  in  general  have  always 
oeen  spoken  of  b}*  the  most  ancient  Fathers  as  baptized 
persons.  And  it  is  also  certain  that,  as  far  as  our  know- 
ledge of  primitive  antiquity  extends,  no  unbaptized  per- 
son received  the  Lord’s  Supper.”2 
Dr.  Dwight,  Congregation alist,  says  : 

“ It  is  an  indispensable  qualification  for  this  ordinance 
that  the  candidate  for  communion  be  a member  of  the 
visible  church  of  Christ  in  full  standing.  By  this  I in- 
tend that  he  shall  be  such  a member  of  the  church  as  I 
have  formerly  described — to  wit,  that  he  should  be  a per- 
son of  piety,  that  he  should  have  made  a public  profes- 
sion of  religion,  and  that  he  should  have  been  bap- 
tized.”3 

Dr.  John  Dick,  Presbyterian,  uses  this  language: 
u An  uncircumcised  man  was  not  permitted  to  eat  the 
Passover,  and  an  unbaptized  man  should  not  be  permit- 
ted to  partake  of  the  Eucharist.”4 
Dr.  Hibbard,  Methodist,  expresses  himself  thus : 

“ It  is  but  just  to  remark  that  in  one  principle  the  Bap- 
tist and  the  Pedobaptist  churches  agree.  They  both  agree 
in  rejecting  from  communion  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  and 
in  denying  the  rights  of  church-fellowship  to,  all  who  have 
not  been  baptized.  Valid  baptism  they  consider  as  essen- 
tial to  constitute  visible  church  membership.  This,  also, 
we  hold.  The  only  question,  then,  that  here  divides  us 
is,  What  is  essential  to  valid  baptism?  The  Baptists,  in 
passing  a sweeping  sentence  of  disfranchisement  upon  all 

1 History  of  Infant  Baptism , Part  ii.  chap.  ix. 

2 Miscellaneous  Works , p.  510. 

1 l?^eology,  Sermon  160.  4 Lectures  on  Theology , Lecture  92. 

31  * 


366 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


other  Christian  churches,  have  only  acted  upon  a princi- 
ple held  in  common  with  all  other  churches — viz.,  that 
baptism  is  essential  to  church  membership.  ...  Of 
course,  they  must  be  their  own  judges  as  to  what  bap- 
tism is.  It  is  evident  that,  according  to  our  views,  we 
can  admit  them  to  our  communion,  but  with  their  views 
of  baptism  it  is  equally  evident  they  can  never  recipro- 
cate the  courtesy ; and  the  charge  of  close  communion  is  no 
more  applicable  to  the  Baptists  than  to  us,  inasmuch  as 
the  question  of  church  membership  is  determined  bv 
as  liberal  principles  as  it  is  with  any  other  Protestant 
churches — so  far,  I mean,  as  the  present  subject  is  con- 
cerned; that  is,  it  is  determined  by  valid  baptism.”1 

This  extract  from  Dr.  Hibbard  exhibits  a spirit  of  con- 
troversial candor  and  fairness  not  often  witnessed  in  the 
discussion  of  the  qualifications  for  participating  in  the 
Lord’s  Supper.  It  explodes  the  charge  of  u Baptist  big- 
otry and  exclusiveness,”  and  establishes  the  fact  that 
the  point  in  dispute  between  Baptists  and  others  is 
not  about  so-called  “ close  communion ,”  but  about  “ close 
baptism .”  The  controversy  is  supremely  and  intensely 
baptismal. 

Every  visible  church  of  Christ  may  be  considered  a 
sacred  enclosure  that  can  be  entered  only  in  one  way.  In 
that  enclosure  is  set  the  table  of  the  Lord.  The  Lord  of 
the  table  has  prescribed  the  terms  of  admittance  into  that 
enclosure.  Those  who  have  complied  with  the  terms,  and 
have  entered  in,  are  the  guardians  of  the  table.  They 
must  see  that  it  is  approached  only  in  the  way  which  the 
Lord  of  the  enclosure  has  specified.  If  they  are  appealed 
to  to  change  the  way  of  entrance,  or  to  make  a new  way, 
or  to  allow  those  without  to  make  ways  of  entrance  to 
suit  themselves,  they  must  say  with  strongest  emphasis, 

1 Christian  Baptism , pp.  171,  175. 


THE  LORD’S  SUPPER . 


367 


“There  is  one  Lawgiver” — “We  have  no  such  custom, 

NEITHER  THE  CHURCHES  OF  GOD.” 

It  will  be  said — for  it  has  been  said  no  one  knows  how 
often — the  table  is  the  Lord’s.  This  all  will  concede.  But 
how  different  are  the  reasonings  based  on  this  concession  ! 
Pedobaptists  say,  that,  as  it  is  the  Lord’s  Table,  they  have  a 
right  to  approach  it ; that,  as  it  is  not  the  table  of  Bap- 
tists, the  Baptists  ought  to  place  no  obstructions  in  the 
way  of  their  approach.  Baptists  say,  that,  as  it  is  the 
Lord’s  Table,  it  must  be  approached  in  the  way  he  di- 
rects ; that  his  proprietorship  of  the  table  furnishes  the 
reason  of  their  course;  that  if  it  was  their  table,  they 
would  have  discretionary  authority,  whereas  they  now 
have  none ; that  they  do  not  place  obstructions  in  the 
way  of  Pedobaptists,  but  that  the  Lord  of  the  table  has 
done  it.  This  is  a specimen  of  the  reasoning  employed 
by  the  two  parties  in  the  controversy.  Which  species 
of  reasoning  indicates  greater  loyalty  to  Christ,  the  reader 
may  determine. 

Did  space  permit,  I should  be  glad  to  argue  the  pre- 
cedence of  baptism  to  the  Lord’s  Supper  from  the  sym- 
bolic import  of  the  two  ordinances.  What  the  argument 
would  be  I indicate  as  follows : Baptism  symbolizes  spirit- 
ual birth — the  beginning  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul ; the 
Lord’s  Supper  symbolizes  the  nourishment  and  support 
of  that  life  by  union  with  Christ  in  his  death.  Life  in 
its  manifested  form  is  preceded  by  birth.  As  we  are 
born  once,  we  are  baptized  once;  but  as  we  need  food 
continuously  to  sustain  life,  we  observe  the  Lord’s  Sup- 
per continuously  so  long  as  we  are  in  the  body.  Thus 
does  it  appear  that  the  symbolism  of  the  two  ordi- 
nances inexorably  demands  that  baptism  shall  precede 
the  Lord’s  Supper 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 


DEATH  01  CHRISTIANS,  AND  THE  INTERMEDIATE 

STATE. 

Precious  and  numerous  as  are  the  blessings  of  the  cov- 
enant of  salvation,  exemption  from  natural  death  is  not 
included  among  them.  The  saints  of  all  generations — 
with  the  two  notable  exceptions  of  Enoch  and  Elijah — 
have  passed  through  the  gate  of  death  into  the  eternal 
world.  Christians  still  die,  and  the  stroke  of  mortality 
^J^will,  doubtless,  fall  on  believers  as  wrell  as  on  unbelievers 
till  Christ  comes  “ the  second  time.” 

We  need  not  curiously  inquire  why  the  saints  are  sub- 
ject to  death.  It  is  more  becoming  to  us  to  accept  the 
fact,  and  be  silent  as  to  the  philosophy  of  it.  When, 
however,  we  remember  that  Jesus  died  and  was  buried, 
we  almost  involuntarily  exclaim, 

“ Where  should  the  dying  members  rest 
But  with  their  dying  Head?” 

As  God  is  with  his  people  during  the  pilgrimage  of  life, 
so  he  is  with  them  in  the  hour  of  death ; and,  as  it  is  their 
great  business  to  glorify  him  in  life,  they  should  also 
gnrify  him  in  death.  When  Jesus,  after  his  resurrection, 
told  Peter  of  certain  things  connected  with  the  martyr- 
death  before  him,  it  is  added,  “This  spake  he,  signifying 
by  what  death  he  should  glorify  God.”  John  xxi.  19. 

^Glorifying  God  in  death  is  a topic  wh/ch  may  well  en- 

368 


DEATH, ; AND  THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  369 


gage  the  attention  of  Christians.  How  may  they  thus 


I.  Hy  their  preparation  for  the  dying  hour.  All  men  must 
die,  yet  none  by  Nature  are  prepared  to  die.  How  is  prep- 
aration to  be  secured  ? How  may  an  exit  from  earth 
be  rendered  safe  and  happy?  These  questions,  Nature 
cannot  answer.  We  may  interrogate  her  ever  so  rigidly, 
catechise  her  ever  so  earnestly,  entreat  her  ever  so  im- 
ploringly, and  she  maintains  an  unbroken  silence.  All 
inquiries,  instituted  in  whatever  department  of  Nature, 
concerning  preparation  for  death,  are  instituted  in  vain 
and  prosecuted  in  vain.j^ 

Nor  can  reason  and  philosophy  tell  how  a sinner  can 
be  pardoned,  sanctified,  prepared  for  death  and  heaven. 
Among  their  many  utterances,  there  is  not  one  on  the  sub- 
ject of  salvation.  Their  realm  is  a wide  one,  but  it  does 
not  embrace  the  science  of  redemption.  The  grave  is  not 
more  silent  than  they  as  to  the  way  of  a sinner’s  restora- 
tion to  the  divine  favor. 

The  gospel  does  what  Nature  cannot  do,  what  reason 
and  philosophy  cannot  do.  It  answers  every  perplexing 
question  as  to  a sinner’s  justification,  sanctification,  prep- 
aration for  death,  and  fitness  for  heaven.  One  passage  of 
Scripture  makes  this  plain : “ The  sting  of  death  is  sin ; 
and  the  strength  of  sin  is  the  law.  But  thanks  be  to  God, 
which  giveth  us  the  victory  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ!”  1 Cor.  xv.  56,  57.  Here  we  learn  that  every- 
thing fearful  in  death  is  ascribed  to  sin.  Sin  furnishes 
death  with  its  dreadful  sting.  But  the  strength  of  sin  i3 
the  law ; and  why  ? Because,  as  sin  is  the  transgression  of 
the  law,  it  follows  that  the  law  gives  sin  its  power  to  con- 
demn. But  God  has  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  on  an 
errand  of  saving  mercy.  Jesus  has  “ magnified  the 
law” — has  sustained  its  dignity  and  honored  its  claims— 


answer 


370 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


by  obeying  its  precepts  and  bearing  its  penalty.  Sin, 
therefore,  can  be  pardoned  consistently  with  law.  C^fow, 
when  the  guilt  of  sin  is  cancelled  by  the  blood  of  atone- 
ment, and  the  soul  is  purified  from  its  moral  pollution  by 
“ the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,”  there  is  in  death  noth- 
ing to  excite  alarm,  for  there  is  nothing  which  can  do  real 
injury.  The  removal  of  sin  is  the  extraction  of  the  sting  of 
death.  Believers  in  Christ  can,  therefore,  die  safely,  peace- 
fully, and  even  triumphantly.  God  gives  them  the  victory 
through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  No  process  of  philosophical 
discipline  gives  it.  Reliance  on  self-righteousness  does  not 
give  it.  Dependence  on  morality  does  not  give  it.  God 
gives  it.  His  grace  alone  prepares  for  the  dying  hour. 
The  dying  Christian’s  preparation  for  death  is  so  mani- 
festly the  work  of  God  that  he  is  glorified  thereby.  All 
the  glory  redounding  from  the  preparation  is  the  Lord’s; 
and  he  so  presides  over  the  death  of  his  people  as  to 
glorify  his  own  name. 

2.  By  bearing  testimony  to  the  power  of  Christianity  to  sus- 
tain them  in  the  dying  hour . This  testimony  has  been  of- 
ten borne.  It  has  been  no  uncommon  thing  for  the 
dying  saint  to  say,  “ God  is  with  me,  and  I fear  not.” 
The  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  is,  that  divine  grace  is  suf- 
ficient for  the  saints  in  all  circumstances.  Whether  it  is 
sufficient  in  death  must  be  tested  when  death  comes. 
Let  the  dying  pilgrim  testify  that  he  who  has  been  with 
him  along  the  journey  of  life  is  with  him  at  its  close — 
that  his  promises  support,  that  his  grace  sustains,  that 
his  presence  cheers ; and  then  God  is  glorified.  In  the 
dying  chamber  of  the  saint  it  sometimes  occurs  that  men 
as  wicked  as  Balaam  adopt  Balaam’s  words : “ Let  me  die 
the  death  of  the  righteous,  and  let  my  last  end  be  like 
his.”  Num.  xxi;i.  10.  Infidelity  trembles,  turns  pale, 
wonders,  and  renders  a reluctant  tribute  of  admiration 


DEATH,  AND  THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  371 

to  the  majesty  of  the  religion  of  Jesus.  The  votaries  of 
Christianity  may  well  felicitate  themselves  that  they 
“have  not  followed  cunningly-devised  fables,”  but  have 
embraced  a system  of  religion  all  divine.  According  to 
the  teachings  of  this  system,  “ to  die  is  gain,”  and  “ bless- 
ed are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord.”  Phil.  i.  21 ; Rev 
xiv.  13.  In  the  sublime  inventory  of  the  Christian’s  pos- 
sessions, as  made  out  by  Paul,  “death  ” has  a place:  “All 
things  are  yours  : whether  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  or 
the  world,  or  life,  or  death,  or  things  present,  or  things  to 
come : all  are  yours,  and  ye  are  Christ’s,  and  Christ  is 
God’s.”  1 Cor.  iii.  21-23.  That  Christianity  can  sustain 
when  “flesh  and  heart  fail”  has  been  proved  in  number- 
less instances.  It  has  been  proved  at  home  and  abroad, 
in  civilized  and  savage  lands,  in  the  palaces  of  the  rich 
and  the  cottages  of  the  poor,  on  the  land  and  on  the  sea, 
in  the  dungeon  and  at  the  stake.  Whether  the  religion 
of  the  Bible  can  support  in  death  is  no  longer  a debata- 
ble question.  It  has  been  long  settled,  and  settled  to 
the  consolation  of  living  Christians,  who  know  full  well 
that  they  must  soon  fall  into  the  arms  of  death. 

As  to  the  physical  act  of  dying,  there  is  in  it  nothing 
desirable.  Nature  recoils  from  the  dissolution  of  soul 
and  body.  Even  the  grace  of  God  does  not  make  death 
welcome  for  its  own  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  blessed 
results  that  follow  it.  “ To  die  is  gain.”  Something  is 
gained  when  the  expiring  struggle  is  over,  and  the  strug- 
gle is  willingly  encountered  because  of  the  advantages 
that  succeed  it.  This  directs  our  attention  to  what  has 
been  called 

The  Intermediate  State. 

By  this  state  is  meant  the  period  that  intervenes  be- 
tween the  death  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  All, 


372 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


therefore,  who  believe  in  the  resurrection  believe  in  such 
a state,  but  there  are  differences  of  opinion  in  regard  to 
it.  The  differences  do  not  pertain  to  the  body,  but  to  the 
disembodied  spirit.  All  agree  that  the  body  will  remain 
in  the  grave  till  Christ  appears  “ the  second  time  without 
sin  unto  salvation.”  Heb.  ix.  28.  The  three  leading  views 
concerning  the  separate  spirits  of  the  pious  dead  are  the 
following : 

1.  That  the  soul  is  unconscious  from  the  death  to  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body.  Those  who  hold  this  view  have  been 
led  to  embrace  it  by  supposing  that,  as  the  soul  now  acts 
through  the  body,  it  is  restricted  to  this  method  of  action. 
It  is  inferred  that  upon  its  exit  from  the  body  it  falls 
into  a state  of  inactivity  and  unconsciousness,  from  which 
it  cannot  awake  till  the  body  is  raised  from  the  dead. 
Even  Archbishop  Whately,  in  his  volume  on  the  Future 
State , evidently  inclines  to  this  theory.  His  reasoning, 
however,  is  by  no  means  conclusive.  He  does  not  posi- 
tively deny  the  activity  of  the  soul  during  the  interval 
between  the  death  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  but 
he  insists  that  if  the  soul  is  active,  it  cannot  act  as  it  does 
while  connected  with  the  body.  This  may  be  granted — 
indeed,  no  one  will  deny  it — but  what  then  ? Will  any 
one  say,  that  the  soul’s  activity  and  consciousness  are  so 
dependent  on  its  connection  with  the  body  as  to  be  de- 
stroyed when  that  connection  is  broken  ? This  would  be 
assuming  the  very  point  in  question.  It  surely  does  not 
follow  that  the  action  of  the  soul  is  to  be  stamped  wTith 
unvarying  uniformity  in  all  the  states  of  its  being.  Why 
may  not  the  disembodied  soulo  of  the  redeemed  be  as 
conscious  and  as  active  as  are  angelic  spirits  ? The  lat- 
ter have  no  bodies,  yet  1 ow  intense  their  consciousness, 
how  unwearied  their  activity ! They  hold  intercourse 
with  kindred  intelligences,  and  enjoy  the  most  exquisite 


DEATH , AND  THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  373 


social  bliss.  Why  may  t not  be  so  with  the  spirits  of 
departed  saints?  ^Stephen,  when  dying  a martyr’s  death, 
prayed,  “ Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.”  Did  he  ask  his 
Lord  to  receive  an  unconscious  spirit ?l  Or  did  he  labor 
under  a mistake?  Strange  time  to  mate  a mistake,  when 
he  saw  heaven  opened  and  the  glory  of  God  shining 
brighter  than  ten  thousand  suns,  while  Jesus  stood  wait- 
ing to  receive  his  spirit ! Did  it  enter  into  the  thoughts 
:>f  the  stoned  martyr  that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  receiving  his 
spirit  would  receive  an  unconscious  thing  ? This  is  ut- 
terly incredible.  The  account  given  in  Luke  xvi.  19-31 
of  “ the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  ” defies  interpretation  if 
the  spirits  of  both  good  and  bad  men  are  not  intensely 
conscious  after  they  leave  the  bodies  in  which  they  dwelt 
on  earth.  The  body  of  the  rich  man  was  buried,  but 
after  the  burial  there  was  something  belonging  to  him  tha 
was  susceptible  of  torment.  So  Lazarus «is  said  to  have 
been  conveyed  to  Abraham’s  bosom,  and  to  have  been 
“ comforted  ” there.  This  was  after  the  death  of  his  af- 
flicted body,  which  no  one  supposes  was  “carried  to 
Abraham’s  bosom.”  If  any  one  shall  say,  that  this  nar- 
rative is  a parable  and  full  of  terms  used  figuratively,  I 
answer,  What  if  it  be  so?  Did  not  Jesus  teach  some- 
thing by  all  his  parables?  What  does  he  teach  here  if 
not  the  consciousness  of  the  soul  after  the  death  of  the 
body  ? As  to  words  used  figuratively,  why  is  there  force 
in  them?  Plainly,  because  there  is  meaning  in  them 
when  used  literally. 

With  regard  to  those  passages  of  the  divine  word  which 
refer  to  death  under  the  imagery  of  sleep , I need  say  but 
little.  The  sleep  is  clearly  the  repose  of  the  body,  and 
cannot  be  identified  with  the  unconsciousness  of  the  soul. 
I think  that,  in  view  of  the  teachings  of  Scripture,  it  may 
be  safely  said,  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  justify  the  be- 

32 


374 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


lief  that  the  soul  is  unconscious  from  the  death  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.  We  should  thank  God  that  the 
gloomy  theory  has  no  scriptural  support. 

2.  That  the  soul  goes  to  paradise , there  to  abide  till  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body.  Many  theologians  entertain  this  opinion. 
They  think  that  the  redeemed  will  not  enter  into  heaven 
till  after  the  judgment.  This  is  by  no  means  a satisfac- 
tory theory,  and  the  arguments  relied  on  for  its  support 
are  not  conclusive.  It  is  said,  that  the  soul  will  be  happy, 
that  all  its  powers  will  be  actively  employed,  but  that  it 
will  not  be  in  heaven.  Paradise,  it  is  argued,  will  be  the 
abode  of  happy  spirits  till  the  consummation  of  all  things, 
but  that  paradise  and  heaven  are  not  identical.  All  that 
can  be  said  in  favor  of  this  view  proceeds  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  paradise  is  not  heaven.  What  does  Paul  say  ? 
— u I knew"  a man  in  Christ  above  fourteen  years  ago 
(whether  in  the  body,  I cannot  tell,  or  whether  out  of  the 
body,  I cannot  tell : God  knoweth) ; such  an  one  caught 
up  to  the  third  heaven.  And  I knew  such  a man 
(whether  in  the  body,  or  out  of  the  body,  I cannot  tell: 
God  knoweth)  ; how  that  he  was  caught  up  into  paradise, 
and  heard  unspeakable  words,  which  it  is  not  lawful  for 
a man  to  utter.”  2 Cor.  xii.  2-4.  It  is  manifest  from 
this  language  that  the  third  heaven  and  paradise  are 
the  same  place.  This  is  so  undeniable  that  even  Dean 
Alford,  who  might  have  been  expected  to  take  the  oppo- 
site view,  says  in  his  commentary,  “ The  paradise  here 
spoken  of  cannot  be  the  Jewish  paradise,  . . . where  the 
spirits  of  the  just  awaited  the  resurrection,  . . . but  the 
paradise  of  which  our  Lord  spoke  on  the  cross — the 
place  of  happiness  into  which  he  at  his  death  introduced 
the  spirits  of  the  just.”  In  reply  to  this  it  may  be  said 
that  the  word  paradise  is  used  but  three  times  in  the  New 
Testament  (Luke  xxiii.  43 ; 2 Cor.  xii.  4 ; Rev.  ii.  7),  and 


DEATH,  AND  THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE  375 


that  it  is  gratuitous  to  assume  that  it  has  different  mean- 
ings. If  it  has,  let  it  be  shown,  for  it  has  not  yet  been 
done.  Paul  was  a Jew,  and  he  expressed  himself  in 
accordance  with  the  prevalent  opinion  of  his  nation. 
The  Jews  believed  in  three  heavens,  the  atmosphere  con- 
stituting the  first.  Hence  we  read  of  the  birds  of  heaven. 
The  apparent  abode  of  the  sun  and  stars  they  considered 
the  second  heaven.  Far  above  the  sun  and  stars  ihey 
supposed  the  throne  of  God  to  be  established.  This  they 
regarded  as  the  third  heaven.  The  Jewish  opinion  sheds 
light  on  such  scriptural  phrases  as  “ heaven  of  heavens,” 
“ above  all  heavens.”  It  was  to  the  third  heaven,  the 
highest  heaven,  even  into  paradise,  that  Paul  was  caught 
up.  There  is  in  the  term  paradise,  as  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, nothing  that  requires  us  to  believe  it  a place  dis- 
tinct from  heaven.  With  this  view  there  is  no  objection 
to  the  belief  that  the  souls  of  the  pious  dead  go  to  para- 
dise ; but  if  by  paradise  is  meant  a place  different  from 
heaven,  a place  lik^the  elysium  of  the  ancient  heath eji, 
there  are  insuperable  objections  to  the.  doctrine.  I now 
refer  to  ano 


Christ,  while  blessing  his  disciples,  “ was  parted  from  them 
and  carried  up  into  heaven.”  Luke  xxiv.  51.  Peter,  in 
Acts  iii.  21,  says  of  Christ,  “ Whom  the  heaven  must  re- 
ceive until  the  times  of  restitution  of  all  things  ;”  and  in 
his  First  Epistle  (iii.  22),  “ Who  is  gone  into  heaven,  and  is 
on  the  right  hand  of  God.”  Surely,  if  Christ  is  on  the 
right  hand  of  God,  he  is  in  heaven.  Now,  Paul  taught 
that  Christians  have  a home  in  heaven.  He  says,  “ For 


which  I re£ 
one : 


3.  That  tl 
of  Christ  in 
heaven.  S 


376 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


we  know  that  if  our  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle 
were  dissolved,  we  have  a building  of  God,  a house  not 
made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens.”  2 Cor.  v.  1. 
The  “ earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  ” refers,  of  course, 
to  the  body,  and  it  is  the  earthly  abode  of  the  soul.  This 
house  is  contrasted  with  the  heayenly; house.  The  former 
is  a temporary,  the  latter  an  everlasting,  habitation.  The 
natural  inference  from  the  apostle’s- words  is,  that  as  soon 
as  the  spirit  leaves  its  earthly  house  it  enters  its  heavenly 
dwelling-place.  This  point  is  made  even  clearer  in  verses 
6,7,  8 of  the  same  chapter:  “Therefore  we  are  always 
confident,  knowing  that  whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the 
body,  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord  (for  we  walk  by 
faith,  not  by  sight) : we  are  confident,  I say,  and  willing 
rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be  present  with 
the  Lord.” 

The  apostle  assumes  that  there  is  in  Christians  some- 
thing different  from  the  body,  something  which  he  calls 
“ we  ” — “ while  we  are  in  the  body.”  The  reference  is 
to  the  spirit,  for  “ the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead.” 
James  ii..  26.  We  are  plainly  taught  that  the  spirit’s 
abode  in  the  body  is  the  period  of  its  absence  from  the 
Lord.  “ At  home  in  the  body,”  “ absent  from  the  Lord,” 
are  expressions  Equivalent  in  duration,  however  much 
they  differ  in  other  respects.  When  Paul  says,  “We  are 
willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be 
present  with  the  Lord,”  the  irresistible  inference  is,  that 
just  as  soon  as  the  spirit  makes  its  exit  from  the  body,  so 
as  to  be  absent  from  it,  just  so  soon  is  it  in  the  presence 
of  the  Lord.  The  glorious  presence  of  the  Lord  is  doubt- 
less referred  to,  and  this  is  enjoyed  only  in  heaven.  The 
language  of  Paul  in  Phil.  i.  23  deserves  special  notice : 
“Plaving  a desire  to  depart,  and  to  be  with  Christ;  which 
is  far  better.”  Here  we  see  that  the  departure,  including 


DEATH, , AND  THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE  377 

death,  was  to  precede  introduction  into  the  presence  of 
Christ.  If  Paul  had  believed  in  the  soul’s  unconscious- 
ness from  the  death  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
could  he  have  said  anything  of  being  “with  Christ”? 
Or  if  so,  could  he  have  thought  it  “ far  better  ” for  his 
spirit  to  be  with  him  in  an  unconscious  state,  than  to 
enjoy  the  sacred  pleasures  of  piety  in  its  earthly  tene- 
ment? We  cannot  for  a moment  suppose  it.  Nor  could 
Paul,  knowing  Christ  to  be  in  heaven,  desire  to  go  to 
paradise  without  believing  it  to  be  identical  with  heaven. 
The  glorified  body  of  Jesus  is  in  heaven,  and  therefore 
heaven  is  a place.  To  this  glorious  place,  Paul  desired 
to  go,  and  restrained  his  desire  only  by  considerations 
of  usefulness  on  earth. 

It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  foregoing  views  to 
believe  that  the  saints  will  receive,  at  the  resurrection, 
large  accessions  of  bliss.  The  thing  insisted  on  is,  that 
the  separate  spirits  of  believers  in  Christ  will  enjoy 
unspeakable  happiness  while  the  bodies  they  have  left 
are  sleeping  in  the  grave.  I close  this  chapter  with  the 
precious  words,  “ A bsent  from  the  body — present  with 
the  Lord  ” 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

THE  RESURRECTION. 

Though,  m the  preceding  chapter,  the  death  of  Chris- 
dans  has  been  specially  referred  to,  it  is  not  to  be  for- 
gotten that  all  men  die : “ It  is  appointed  unto  men  once 
to  die.”  Heb.  ix.  27.  This  appointment  is  of  God.  It  is 
universal  and  inevitable.  The  stroke  of  death  falls  on  all 
the  human  race.  As  the  body  is  a part  of  the  complex 
nature  of  man,  it  is  a matter  of  no  little  interest  to  inquire 
what  becomes  of  it  after  death,  and  what  is  to  be  its  final 
destiny.  What  becomes  of  it  we  learn  from  Eccles.  xii. 
7 : u Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was.” 
This  takes  place  in  fulfilment  of  the  sentence,  “ Dust  thou 
art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return.”  Gen.  iii.  19.  The 
body,  having  been  made  “ of  the  dust  of  the  ground,”  is 
resolved  into  its  original  elements.  The  work  of  disor- 
ganization is  complete  in  the  grave.  But  will  the  body 
remain  evermore  in  the  grave?  The  ancient  heathen 
philosophers  and  people,  would  have  answered  in  the 
affirmative.  They  had  some  confused  notions  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  but  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
they  had  no  conception.  They  did  not  believe  that  any 
or  all  of  their  gods  had  power  sufficient  to  raise  the  dust 
of  mortality  from  the  cold  embraces  of  the  tomb.  Hence 
when  Paul  at  Athens  preached  “ the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  some  mocked.”  Acts  xiii.  32.  Indeed,  apart  from 

378 


THE  RESURRECTION . 


379 


the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
is  incredible.  Rev.  Dr.  Richard  Fuller  has  well  said : . 

“ I am  not  unmindful  of  certain  analogies  as  to  which 
poets  and  philosophers  have  discoursed  with  great  beauty. 
I remember  the  butterfly  rising  from  the  chrysalis  and 
spreading  its  gaudy  wings  to  the  sun ; but  was  there  any 
death  there  ? This  is  nothing  but  a new  form  of  exist- 
ence. And  so,  too,  as  to  the  coming  forth  of  bud  and 
leaf  and  flower  in  spring-time ; vegetation  never  was  dead, 
it  only  slept.  The  vernal  rays  pour  no  life  into  the  trunk 
which  is  hewn  or  decayed.  They  cannot  give  it  vital 
growth  again. 

“ The  resurrection  of  the  body  is  no  such  renewal  of 
suspended  vitality  ; it  is  the  re-infusion  of  life  into  a 
corpse,  and  these  fancies  only  mock  the  earnest  soul 
seeking  anxiously  for  truth.”1 

The  body  in  the  grave  is  dead , and  how  is  it  to  live 
again?  There  is  nothing  in  the  wide  realm  of  nature 
and  reason  which  intimates  the  possibility  of  its  living 
again.  Paul's  question,  in  his  defence  before  King 
Agrippa,  is  full  of  meaning : “ Why  should  it  be  thought 
a thing  incredible  with  you,  that  God  should  raise  the 
dead  ?”  Acts  xxvi.  8.  The  apostle  does  not  suggest,  as  on 
another  subject  (1  Cor.  xi.  14),  that  “ nature  itself”  teaches 
something.  No,  the  point  he  makes  is,  that  God  can  raise 
the  dead,  and  therefore  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is 
perfectly  credible.  The  power  of  God  is  specially  concerned 
in  the  resurrection,  and  this  is  the  reason  why  Jesus  said  to 
the  Sadducees, “ Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor 
the  power  of  God.”  Matt.  xxii.  29.  It  was  not  only  their 
ignorance  of  the  Scriptures,  but  their  inadequate  idea  of 
the  power  of  God,  that  led  them  to  deny  the  resurrec- 
tion. The  Spirit  of  inspiration  seems  to  have  anticipated 
1 Syrmon  on  The  Incredulity  of  Thomas. 


380 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


and  obviated  all  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion in  these  words:  “Who  shall  change  our  vile  body, 
that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  ac- 
cording to  the  working  [energy]  whereby  he  is  able  even 
to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself.”  Phil.  iii.  21.  The 
energy,  the  power  which  can  “ subdue  all  things,”  can 
raise  the  dead.  “ The  things  which  are  impossible  with 
men  are  possible  with  God.”  Luke  xviii.  27.  The  term 
“resurrection  ” literally  means  rising  again.  This  implies 
that  the  body  which  rises  again  had  fallen.  It  is  need- 
less to  discuss  the  question  of  the  identity  of  the  body, 
for  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  irresistibly  implies  it.  The 
same  body  which  dies  and  is  buried  is  raised  up  in  pos- 
session of  all  the  properties  essential  to  its  identity.  The 
same  spirit  which  had  left  it  at  its  death  re-enters  it,  and 
thus  the  complete  personality  will  be  preserved  for  ever. 
So  true  will  it  be  that  “ whatsoever  a man  soweth,  that 
shall  he  also  reap.”  Gal.  vi.  7.  The  same  man  who  sows 
in  time  shall  reap  in  eternity. 

As  to  the  period  of  the  resurrection,  the  whole  tenor  of 
Scripture  indicates  that  it  will  take  place  at  the  end  of  the 
world,  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  and  as  preparatory 
to  the  general  judgment.  It  is  supposed  by  many  that 
there  will  be  two  resurrections — the  one  of  the  righteous, 
preceding  and  introducing  the  millennium ; the  other  of 
the  wicked,  following  the  millennium  and  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  last  judgment.  The  two  passages  of 
Scripture  chiefly  relied  on  in  support  of  this  view  are  1 
Thess.  iv.  16 ; Rev.  xx.  6.  In  the  first  of  these  passages — ■ 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  words,  “The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise 
first  ” — there  is  obviously  no  reference  to  the  wicked.  The 
apostle  teaches  that  when  the  Lord  descends  from  heaver, 
the  dead  saints  will  rise  first ; that  is,  before  the  living 
saints  are  transformed  and  “ caught  up  with  them  to  meet 


HIE  RESURRECTION. 


381 


the  Lord  in  the  air.”  As  to  the  second  passage,  it  may  be 
said,  that  while  there  are  great  and  good  men  who  under- 
stand it  to  teach  a literal  resurrection,  there  are  weighty 
objections  to  this  view.  If  it  is  correct,  it  seems  quite 
plain  that  all  the  righteous  will  not  rise  at  the  same  time. 
John  in  his  wonderful  vision  saw  “the  souls  of  them  that 
were  beheaded  for  the  witness  of  Jesus  and  for  the  word 
of  God.”  The  reference  is  to  the  noble  army  of  martyrs, 
and  if  the  resurrection  is  literal,  it  must  be  pestricted  to 
martyrs,  for  of  them  it  is  said,  that  they  “reigned  with 
Christ  a thousand  years.”  What  is  to  become  of  the 
millions  of  the  righteous  who  were  not  “ beheaded  for  the 
witness  of  Jesus”?  Will  there  be  a distinct  resurrection 
for  them?  or  will  their  resurrection  be  postponed  until 
the  wicked  are  raised?  Again,  if  in  the  passage  under 
consideration  a literal  resurrection  is  referred  to,  it  is 
passing  strange  that  John  did  not  see  the  bodies , but  “the 
souls  of  them  that  were  beheaded  for  the  witness  of 
Jesus.”  Rev.  xx.  4.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the 
book  of  Revelation  abounds  in  figurative  language. 
Many  of  its  figures  are  very  bold  and  strong.  It  cannot 
be  said  that  the  import  of  the  “ first  resurrection  ” is  clear 
beyond  a doubt,  for  men  differ  in  opinion  concerning  it. 
This  being  the  case,  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  rules  of 
sound  interpretation  to  make  Rev.  xx.  6 the  basis  of  a 
theory  in  conflict  with  other  plain  passages  of  the  divine 
word.  That  the  obscure  must  yield  to  the  clear,  and  the 
indistinct  to  the  luminous,  should  be  regarded  an  axiom 
in  exposition.  How,  then,  are  we  to  interpret  what  is  said 
of  the  “ first  resurrection  ” ? Our  interpretation  must  ac- 
cord with  passages  on  which  there  rests  no  obscurity. 
Adopting  this  method,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  den}7  that 
the  “ first  resurrection  ” is  a literal  resurrection,  and  to  in- 
sist that  there  will  be  one  simultaneous  resurrection  of  the 


382 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


righteous  and  the  wicked.  The  following  Scriptures  utter 
no  uncertain  sound : “ For  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the 
which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice  and 
shall  come  forth;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the 
resurrection  of  life;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto 
the  resurrection  of  damnation”  (John  v.  28,29);  “That 
there  shall  be  a resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just 
and  unjust.”  Acts  xxiv.  15. 

“ All  thaf  are  in  the  graves  ” are  all  the  dead,  and  the 
natural  construction  of  the  language  is,  that  they  all  will 
at  the  same  time  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
at  the  same  time  come  forth.  That  saints  and  sinners 
are  included  is  manifest  from  the  connection  of  the  res- 
urrection with  “ life  ” and  also  with  “ damnation.”  So 
likewise  when  Paul  says,  that  there  shall  be  a resurrec- 
tion of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust,  every  one  who  has  no 
preconceived  theory  to  maintain  must  understand  him  as 
teaching  that  the  just  and  the  unjust  will  rise  together. 
It  will  be  after  the  resurrection  that  “the  Son  of  man 
shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gathewout  of 
his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  which  do 
iniquity.”  Matt.  xiii.  41.  The  language  of  2 Thess.  i.  7- 
10  has  an  important  bearing  on  this  point : “ And  to 
you,  who  are  troubled,  rest  with  us,  when  the  Lord 
Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty 
angels,  in  flaming  fire  taking  vengeance  on  them  that 
know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ:  who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  de- 
struction from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the 
glory  of  his  power ; when  he  shall  come  to  be  glorified  in 
his  saints,  and  to  be  admired  in  all  them  that  believe.” 
These  words  are  full  of  meaning,  and  they  teach,  among 
other  things,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  will  come  to  punish 
sinners  when  he  comes  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints. 


THE  RESURRECTION . 


383 


There  will  not  be  two  comings,  bill  one  coming  for  two 
purposes. 

In  view  of  the  considerations  now  presented,  1 must, 
of  course,  understand  the  words  “ first  resurrection  ” in 
a figurative  sense,  as  denoting  a revival  of  the  principles 
of  piety  exemplified  in  the  martyrs  of  Jesus  who  laid 
down  their  lives  for  his  sake.  Andrew  Fuller  observes : 
“The  ‘first  resurrection’  appears  to  me  to  be  no  other 
than  the  millennium  itself,  to  which  all  that  is  said  of  it 
will  well  apply.  During  this  glorious  period  the  church 
will  have  its  Pauls  and  Peters  and  Johns  over  again. 
Men  will  be  raised  up  who  will  go  forth  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  those  worthies,  as  much  as  John  the  Baptist 
did  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias.  Thus  the  apostles 
and  martyrs  will,  as  it  were,  be  raised  from  their  graves 
and  live  again  upon  the  earth.”  1 

The  thoughtful  reader  will  see  that  the  view  any  one 
may  hold  concerning  the  “ first  resurrection  ” determines 
his  view  of  the  millennium.  That  there  will  be  a period 
when  truth  and  righteousness  shall  be  prevalent  through- 
out the  world,  when  “earth  shall  keep  jubilee  a thousand 
years,”  is  one  of  the  articles  of  the  common  faith,  but 
whether  that  blessed  period  shall  precede  or  follow  the 
personal  coming  of  Christ  is  the  point  on  which  good 
men  differ.  It  does  not  accord  with  the  purpose  of  this 
volume  to  go  at  any  length  into  a discussion  of  this  ques- 
tion. My  belief  that  the  millennium  will  precede  the  per- 
sonal coming  of  Christ  has  been  sufficiently  indicated.2 

1 Works , vol.  iii.  p.  295. 

2 While  holding  this  view,  I admit  that  there  are  some  plausible  ar- 
guments on  the  other  side  of  the  question — arguments  which  it  is  not  a 
very  easy  task  to  refute.  Still,  taking  into  account  the  teachings  of  all 
the  Scriptures  bearing  on  the  point,  I am  obliged  to  believe  that  the 
millennium  will  precede  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  The  “ binding 


384 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


* 

To  return  to  the  subject  of  the  resurrection.  The  com- 
ing of  Christ  to  raise  the  dead  will  be  a magnificent  and 
glorious  spectacle.  “ When  the  Son  of  man  shall  comf  in 
his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he 
sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory”  (Matt.  xxv.  31);  “For 
the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a shout, 
with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of 
God  ” (1  Thess.  iv.  16) ; “ For  the  trumpet  shall  sound, 
and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall 
be  changed.”  1 Cor.  xv.  52. 

The  second  coming  of  our  Lord  will  be  heralded  by  the 
resurrection  trumpet,  which  will  be  heard  in  every  grave 
and  will  break  the  sleep  of  all  the  centuries.  From  Eu- 
rope, Asia,  Africa,  America,  and  the  isles  of  the  sea  the 
dead  will  come  forth.  The  wide  empire  of  the  grave 
will  be  depopulated,  for  the  sea,  as  well  as  the  land,  will 
give  up  its  dead.  Millions  have  found  their  sepulchres 
in  the  deep  waters,  and  old  Ocean  has  chanted  its  stormy 
dirge  over  them  for  ages,  but  they  will  hear  the  sound 
of  the  last  trumpet  and  live  again.  The  day  of  the  res- 
urrection will  be  a great  day — a day  of  wonders  and  a 
day  replete  with  glory.  Well  has  a poet  said — 

“ Ye  heavens,  great  archway  of  the  universe, 

Put  sackcloth  on  ; and,  ocean,  clothe  thyself 
In  garb  of  widowhood,  and  gather  all 
Thy  waves  into  a groan,  and  utter  it, 

Long,  loud,  deep,  piercing,  dolorous,  immense : 

The  occasion  asks  it!  Nature  dies,  and  God 
And  angels  come  to  lay  her  in  the  grave !”  1 

It  is  a fact,  to  which  I only  advert,  that  little  or  nothing 
is  said  of  the  appearance  of  the  wicked  after  their  resur- 

of  Satan  ” — that  is,  the  remarkable  restraint  that  will  be  imposed  on 
his  influence — will  introduce  the  blessed  era. 

1 Pollok’s  Course  of  Time , book  vi. 


THE  RESURRECTION . 


385 


rection.  One  passage  of  Scripture  (Dan.  xii.  2)  teaches 
that  they  will  rise  “ to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.’' 
Possibly,  they  will  not  only  feel  shame  and  self-contempt 
in  contemplating  their  characters,  but  in  beholding  their 
personal  appearance.  It  may  be  that  the  bodies  of  the 
wicked  at  the  resurrection  wTill  be  such  objects  of  physical^ 
deformity  and  repulsiveness  as  we  now  have  no  concep- 
tion of.  I leave  the  fearful  subject. 

With  regard  to  the  saints,  wre  are  explicitly  told,  that  as 
they  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy — that  is,  Adam 
formed  out  of  the  earth — so  also  shall  they  bear  the 
image  of  the  heavenly — that  is,  the  Lord  from  heaven. 

1 Cor.  xv.  49.  We  have  likewise  the  wrords,  “ Who  shall 
change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto 
his  glorious  body  ” (Phil.  iii.  21);  “We  know  that  when 
he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him ; for  we  shall  see 
him  as  he  is.”  1 John  iii.  2.  I suppose  that  the  likeness 
here  referred  to  will  embrace  both  soul  and  body.  The 
last  stain  of  sin  will  have  been  washed  from  the  souls  of 
the  redeemed,  and  they  will  be  like  Christ  in  holiness, 
while  their  bodies  will  be  changed  into  a complete  resem- 
blance of  his.  Without  doubt,  the  glorified  body  of  Jesus 
is  the  highest  specimen  of  physical  beauty  and  perfec- 
tion in  the  universe,  and  the  bodies  of  the  saints  are  to 
be  made  just  like  it.  The  conformity  will  be  so  com- 
plete that  the  image  of  Christ  will  shine  forth  in  the 
redeemed  with  resplendent  glory  through  everlasting 
ages. 

From  Paul’s  majestic  argument  on  the  resurrection,  as 
recorded  in  the  fifteeenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  we  may  learn  the  following  truths  concerning 
the  reanimated  bodies  of  the  saints  : 

1.  They  will  be  raised  in  incorruption . They  are  committed 
to  the  grave  in  a corruptible  state.  They  are  capable 

33 


386 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


of  decomposition,  and  are  consigned  to  putrefaction  and 
worms  and  dust.  The  processes  that  go  on  in  the  grave 
are  processes  of  disorganization.  The  body,  like  a Jewish 
house  infected  with  leprosy,  is  totally  demolished.  Not 
only  do  the  bodily  organs  cease  to  perform  their  functions, 
*but  there  is  an  entire  dissolution  of  the  bodily  organism 
itself.  All  this  is  implied  when  it  is  said  of  the  body,  that 
“ it  is  sown” — or  committed  to  the  grave — “ in  corruption-” 
But  the  same  body  which  is  buried  a corruptible  one  will 
be  raised  “ in  incorruption.”  There  will  be  no  liability  to 
the  wasting  influence  of  disease,  no  tendency  to  decay,  no 
possibility  of  dissolution.  When  it  is  said,  that  “ flesh 
and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ” (1  Cor.  xv. 
50),  the  meaning  is  that  the  bodies  of  the  saints,  as  at  pres- 
ent organized,  are  so  unfitted  for  heaven  that  they  cannot 
be  admitted  into  its  sacred  mansions.  These  bodies  must 
be  reconstructed,  and  in  their  reconstruction  every  ele- 
ment of  corruption  will  be  left  out.  They  will  therefore 
rise  from  the  grave  clothed  with  all  the  glory  of  incorrup- 
tion. An  incorruptible  body  is  an  immortal  body — im- 
mortal as  the  spirit  inhabiting  it.  When  the  saints  are 
raised  from  the  dead  the  sublime  words  of  Jesus  will  be 
true  of  them  : “ Neither  can  they  die  any  more.”  Luke 
xx.  36.  To  die  will  be  a blessed  impossibility. 

2.  They  will  be  raised  in  glory . This  glory  is  the  opposite 
of  the  “ dishonor  ” connected  with  burial  in  the  grave. 
Who  does  not  know  something  of  this  dishonor?  The 
bodies  of  the  best  Christians  can  be  seen  for  only  a short 
time  after  death.  Friendship  and  love  will  not  permit 
them  to  be  long  visible.  The  beginning  of  the  putrefy* 
ing  process  renders  them  offensive,  and  they  are  put  out 
of  sight.  When  Abraham  was  making  arrangements  for 
the  burial  of  Sarah,  who  had  been  so  beautiful,  he  said, 
“that  I should  bury  my  dead  out  of  my  sight.”  Gen. 


THE  RESURRECTION. 


387 


xxiii.  8.  Alas  ! how  manifest  the  dishonor  resting  on  the 
body  when  committed  to  the  custody  of  the  grave ! The 
dishonor,  too,  will  continue  until  the  resurrection-day ; 
for  had  there  been  no  sin,  there  would  have  been  no 
graves.  Ignominy  is  inseparable  from  imprisonment  in 
the  grave,  but  the  end  of  the  imprisonment  will  be  then 
end  of  the  ignominy.  The  dishonor  of  the  sepulchre 
will  be  removed.  The  bodies  of  the  saints  will  be  raised 
in  glory,  and  the  glory  will  be  heightened  by  its  striking 
contrast  with  the  previous  dishonor.  They  will  be  glo- 
rious bodies,  perfectly  suited  to  the  world  of  glory,  con- 
formed to  Christ’s  “ glorious  body ;”  and  when  they  re- 
ceive them,  “ then  shall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the 
sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father.”  Matt.  xiii.  43. 
What  words  are  these ! — “ shine  forth  as  the  sun.”  Doubt- 
less, there  will  be  a glory  reflected  from  the  incorruptible 
bodies  of  the  saints  like  that  which  clothed  the  body  of 
Jesus  amid  the  wonders  of  the  Transfiguration.  Who 
can  tell  how  much  is  implied  in  the  transporting  words 
“ raised  in  glory  ” ? 

3.  They  will  be  raised  in  power . This  does  not  mean  that 
they  will  be  raised  by  the  power  of  God,  however  true 
that  may  be.  To  be  raised  in  power  from  the  grave  is  the 
opposite  of  being  committed  to  the  grave  “ in  weakness.” 
The  powers  of  the  body  are  comparatively  feeble  in  health, 
they  become  feebler  still  in  sickness,  and  they  utterly  cease 
at  death.  A dead  body  is  a powerless  thing.  Who  in 
looking  at  a corpse  is  not  reminded  of  this  ? It  puts  forth 
no  act  of  resistance.  The  feet  walk  not,  the  eyes  see  not, 
the  hands  move  not.  It  makes  no  protest  against  being 
put  into  a coffin  and  conveyed  to  its  resting-place  in  the 
grave.  Truly,  Paul  labored  under  no  mistake  when  he 
said  of  the  body,  “It  is  sown  in  weakness.”  But  the 
bodies  of  the  saints  will  be  raised  in  power.  This  power 


388 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


will  include  everything  which  is  in  antagonism  with  the 
weakness  referred  to.  Fatigue  follows  exertion  now,  ac- 
tivity induces  weariness,  and  disease  exhausts  the  strength 
of  the  mortal  frame.  The  resurrection  bodies  of  the  re- 
deemed will  be  endued  with  such  vital  energy  and  vigor 
4^is  will  for  ever  preclude  the  necessity  of  rest.  There  will 
be  no  feeling  of  weakness  or  fatigue,  but  the  body  “ raised 
in  power  ” will  be  a suitable  vehicle  for  the  active,  immor- 
tal spirit.  The  saints  in  their  complete  persons  will  “ rest 
not  day  nor  night.” 

4.  They  will  have  spiritual  bodies . “ It  is  sown  a natural 
body;  it  is  raised  a spiritual  body.”  We  know  what  the 
natural  body  is.  It  is  the  present  habitation  of  the  soul, 
and  is  adapted  to  the  present  constitution  of  things.  It 
therefore  needs  food  to  sustain  its  life,  sleep  to  refresh  it 
when  weary,  and  medicine  to  heal  its  diseases.  In  short, 
it  is  subject  to  the  laws  which  control  the  economy  under 
which  it  now  acts.  But  the  spiritual  bodies  of  the  saints 
after  the  resurrection  will  be  free  from  these  laws.  They 
will  not  be  flesh  and  blood.  They  will  not  be  animal 
bodies.  They  will,  of  course,  be  material  bodies,  for 
otherwise  they  would  not  be  bodies  at  all.  It  seems,  how- 
ever, that  the  matter  of  which  they  are  formed  will  be  so 
refined  and  purified  that  it  will  resemble  spiritual  sub- 
stances. But  our  conceptions  of  spirit  are  indistinct  and 
imperfect.  How  little  we  know ! A thousand  things  that 
we  “ know  not  now  we  shall  know  hereafter.”  Of  these 
things  we  may  be  certain — that  the  spiritual  bodies  of  the 
redeemed  will  be  like  the  glorified  body  of  Christ,  and 
that  they  will  answer  all  the  high  and  holy  purposes  of 
companionship  with  the  spirits  indissolubly  united  to 
them.  Every  saint  will,  in  his  complete  personality,  en- 
joy everlasting  life  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 


T 


THE  GENERAL  JUDGMENT. 

That  thei  3 will  be  a day  of  judgment,  when  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  shall  stand  before  the  tribunal  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  plain  from  the  following  passages  of  the  word  of 
God: 

“ When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all 
the  holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne 
of  his  glory : and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations : 
and  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  a shepherd 
divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats:  and  he  shall  set  the 
sheep  on  his  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  the  left.  Then 
shall  the  King  say  unto  them  on  his  right  hand,  Come,  ye 
blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for 
you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  . . . Then  shall 
he  say  also  unto  them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart  from 
me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the 
devil  and  his  angels.  . . . And  these  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment  : but  the  righteous  into  life  eter- 
nal” (Matt.  xxv.  31-46) ; “And  the  times  of  this  igno- 
rance God  winked  at;  but  now  commandetli  all  men 
everywhere  to  repent : because  he  hath  appointed  a day, 
in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by 
that  Man  whom  he  hath  ordained;  whereof  he  hath 
given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him 
from  the  dead”  (Acts  xvii.  30,  31);  “For  we  must  all  ap- 
33  * 389 


390 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


pear  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ;  that  every  one 
may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that 
he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad  ” (2  Cor.  v.  10) ; 
“ And  I saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before  God ; 
and  the  books  were  opened  : and  another  book  was  open- 
ed, which  is  the  book  of  life ; and  the  dead  were  judged 
out  of  those  things  which  were  written  in  the  books,  ac- 
cording to  their  works.”  Rev.  xx.  12. 

These  are  a few  of  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  general  judgment,  and  the 
same  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Old,  where  it  is  said : “ For 
God  shall  bring  every  work  into  judgment,  with  every 
secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil.” 
Eccles.  xii.  14.  The  point  is  settled  that  the  world  will 
be  judged;  and  to  forbid  the  supposition  on  the  part  of 
any  individual  that  he  will  be  absorbed  in  the  aggregate 
of  the  world’s  population,  it  is  written:  “So  then  every 
one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  himself  to  God.”  Rom. 
xiv.  12.  It  is  this  personal  account  that  adds  to  the  so- 
lemnity of  the  great  day. 

Some  have  virtually  called  in  question  the  propri 
ety  and  necessity  of  a day  of  general  judgment.  Their 
view  seems  to  be  about  this : that  as  there  is  at  death  a 
determination  of  the  final  state  of  every  man,  it  is  need 
less  to  have  a general  judgment.  The  reasoning  is  more 
plausible  than  conclusive,  for  while  character  and  destiny 
are  unchangeable  after  death,  it  may  answer  important 
purposes  for  character  to  be  fully  revealed  and  for  the 
ground  of  destiny  to  be  fully  known.  It  will  be  admitted 
by  all  that  God  might,  if  he  chose  to  do  so,  administer  his 
government  in  perfect  secrecy,  concealing  the  reasons  of 
his  acts  from  all  men  and  all  angels.  With  an  impene- 
trable veil  thrown  over  the  divine  proceedings,  they 
would  still  be  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  per- 


THE  GENERAL  JUDGMENT. 


391 


feet  justice,  for  a just  God  cannot  deviate  from  these  prin- 
ciples. But  we  must  remember  that  God,  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  his  government,  is  not  only  just,  but  that  he  in- 
tends that  his  justice  shall  be  seen  and  acknowledged  by 
all  his  intelligent  creatures.  This  is,  doubtless,  one  of  the 
purposes  to  be  accomplished  by  the  final  judgment.  Its 
disclosures  will  be  the  fullest  vindication  of  the  divine 
character  and  the  divine  government.  Whatever  suspi- 
cions may  have  rested  on  either  will  be  for  ever  removed ; 
God’s  infinite  justice  as  well  as  his  infinite  wisdom  and 
goodness  will  be  fully  recognized.  Thus  the  judgment 
will 


“ assert  eternal  Providence, 

And  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  men.” 


It  is  supremely  worthy  of  remark  that  Jesus  Christ  will 
be  the  Judge  of  the  world.  Peter  said  to  Cornelius,  “ It 
is  he  which  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of 
quick  and  dead.”  Acts  x.  42.  Paul  said  of  Jesus,  “ Who 
shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appearing 
and  his  kingdom.”  2 Tim.  iv.  1.  Jesus  himself  said, 
“ For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed 
all  judgment  unto  the  Son.  . . . And  hath  given  him 
authority  to  execute  judgment  also,  because  he  is  the 
Son  of  man.”  John  v.  22,  27.  As  the  reward  of  his  hu- 
miliation and  death,  the  Son  of  man,  the  Mediator,  ha;.> 
been  invested  with  universal  authority,  that  “ at  the  name 
of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow.”  Phil.  ii.  It.  The  ad- 
ministration of  the  divine  government  is  in  his  hands, 
and  is  a mediatorial  administration.  The  last  act  of  this 
administration,  so  far  as  we  know,  will  be  judging  the 
world,  after  which  it  seems  that  there  will  be  a delivery 
of  “the  kingdom  to  God  even  the  Father,  . . . that  God 
may  be  all  in  all.”  1 Cor.  xv.  24,  28.  That  the  office  of 


392 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


Judge  of  the  human  race  is  fitly  devolved  on  Jesus  Christ 
appears  in  the  fact  that  he  is  God-man.  Uniting  in  his 
person  divmity  and  humanity,  it  is  morally  certain  that, 
while  he  sacredly  protects  the  honor  and  the  majesty  of 
the  divine  government,  he  will  make  all  necessary  allow- 
ances for  those  he  judges.  As  the  God-man  he  will  re- 
member his  experiences  during  his  sojourn  on  earth. 
What  more  eminently  proper  than  that  he  through 
whose  blood  countless  millions  are  saved  shall  appoint 
them  places  in  the  heavenly  mansions?  What  more 
appropriate  than  that  the  Friend  of  sinners  shall  con- 
sign to  perdition  those  who  rejected  the  salvation  of- 
fered in  his  name? 

As  to  the  judicial  process : We  are  told  concerning  it, 
that  “the  books  were  opened:  and  another  book  was 
opened  which  is  the  book  of  life.”  Rev.  xx.  12.  This 
language  is,  no  doubt,  figurative,  for  there  will  be  no 
literal  opening  of  books.  The  imagery  employed,  how- 
ever, is  very  suggestive.  It  implies  that  everything  neces- 
sary to  a perfect  judicial  decision  will  be  known,  even  as 
a knowledge  of  matters  committed  to  books  of  record  is 
safely  preserved.  There  will  be  no  need  of  witnesses  to 
testify,  for  the  Judge,  being  omniscient,  will  be  perfectly 
acquainted  with  the  characters  of  those  whom  he  judges. 
With  our  finite  minds  we  are  overwhelmed  with  this 
thought.  How  can  we  conceive  that  our  final  Judge 
will  know  every  individual  of  the  multiplied  millions 
before  him,  all  the  works  performed  by  each  one,  all  the 
words  spoken,  and  all  the  thoughts  indulged?  There  will 
be  a perfect  acquaintance  with  all  the  elements  that  have 
entered  into  the  formation  of  moral  character,  while  the 
charac  ter  formed  will  be,  in  every  case,  prophetic  and  de- 
cisive of  destiny.  Works  will  be  brought  to  light,  even 
deeds  of  darkness,  as  well  as  deeds  of  mercy,  performed 


THE  GENERAL  JUDGMENT. 


393 


go  secretly  that  “the  left  hand  has  not  known  what  was 
done  by  the  right.”  It  is  plainly  written  that  “God  will 
bring  every  work  into  judgment.”  All  the  words  that 
have  been  spoken  will  be,  in  effect,  reproduced,  “ for  by 
thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified,  and  by  thy  words  thou 
slialt  be  condemned.”  Matt.  xii.  37.  The  thoughts  of  all 
hearts  will  be  revealed,  because  it  is  said  that  when  the 
Lord  comes  he  “ will  make  manifest  the  counsels  of  the 
hearts.”  1 Cor.  iv.  5. 

1.  The  righteous  will  he  judged.  In  proof  of  this  I need 
only  state  that  when  the  Judge  shall  say  to  them,  “ Come, 
ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared 
for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,”  he  will  add 
these  words : “For  I was  an-hungered,  and  ye  gave  me 
meat:  I was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink:  I was  a 
stranger,  and  ye  took  me  in : naked,  and  ye  clothed  me : 
I was  sick,  and  ye  visited  me:  I was  in  prison,  and  ye 
came  unto  me.”  Matt.  xxv.  35,  36.  It  is  evident  that 
these  good  works  will  be  referred  to,  not  as  creating  a 
title  to  the  heavenly  kingdom,  but  as  showing  it  or  mak- 
ing it  manifest.  Believers  are  justified  by  grace  through 
faith,  but  good  works  are  fruits  of  faith  and  proofs  of 
justification.  They  are  evidences  of  Christian  character, 
and  will  be  so  recognized  at  the  judgment.  It  is  there- 
fore to  be  remembered  that  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
grace,  so  far  from  being  unfriendly  to  practical  piety,  is 
promotive  of  good  works.  It  will,  no  doubt,  be  made 
known  on  the  judgment-day  that  the  righteous  have 
been  made  righteous  in  Christ,  not  having  their  “ own 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is 
of  God  by  faith.”  Phil.  iii.  9.  It  will  be  seen  that  from 
first  to  last  their  salvation  has  been  of  grace — that  God 
was  just  in  justifying  them  through  the  atoning  sacrifice 


394 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


of  the  cross ; and  thus  the  honors  of  justice  as  well  as 
the  riches  of  mercy  will  be  illustrated  in  their  acquittal 
on  the  great  day.  Having  been  acquitted  and  pro- 
nounced heirs  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  the  saints,  as 
it  may  be  inferred  from  1 Cor.  vi.  2,  3,  will  be  appointed 
assessors  with  Christ  in  the  remaining  part  of  the  adjudi- 
cations that  will  be  made : “ Do  ye  hot  know  that  the 
saints  shall  judge  the  world  ? and  if  the  world  shall  be 
judged  by  you,  are  ye  unworthy  to  judge  the  smallest 
matters?  Know  ye  not  that  ye  shall  judge  angels?” 

2.  The  wicked  will  be  judged.  We  read  of  the  “revelation 
of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,”  and  this  “revelation  ” 
is  connected  with  what  is  called  “ the  day  of  wrath.” 
Rom.  ii.  5.  There  will  be  the  strictest  adherence  to  the 
principles  of  justice  when  the  wicked  are  judged.  Noth- 
ing will  be  done  arbitrarily,  but  all  will  be  in  perfect 
accordance  with  righteousness.  The  judgment  will  ex- 
hibit in  the  wicked  different  degrees  of  guilt.  They  wTill 
be  held  responsible  for  the  improvement  of  all  the  light 
they  may  have  had.  This  is  the  teaching  of  Christ,  wno 
says,  “ For  unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him 
shall  be  much  required.”  Luke  xii.  48.  Responsibility 
is  in  proportion  to  blessings  received  and  opportunities 
enjoyed. 

(a)  Heathen  nations  will  be  judged  by  the  light  of 
nature.  Paul  refers  to  them  in  these  words : “ For  the 
invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world 
are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are 
made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead ; so  that  they 
are  without  excuse.”  Rom.  i.  20.  The  argument  of  the 
apostle  is,  that  men  may  and  must  infer  the  existence 
of  God  from  the  works  of  creation,  and  that  their  con- 
ception of  a Supreme  Being  renders  idolatry  inexcusable. 
If,  then,  idolaters  are  without  excuse,  they  must  stand 


THE  GENERAL  JUDGMENT. 


395 


guilty  before  the  judgment-seat.  How  much  men  may 
know  of  God  without  the  Bible  is  not  now  the  subject  of 
discussion.  The  point  is,  that  the  heathen,  because  they 
can  infer  the  being  of  God  from  his  works,  are  without 
excuse.  This  being  the  case,  the}r  must  be  adjudged 
guilty  and  incur  the  consequences  of  their  guilt.  If  they 
are  without  excuse,  justice  demands  that  a sentence  of 
condemnation  be  pronounced  on  them.  The  compara- 
tive severity  of  this  sentence  we  may  not  know,  but  of 
its  certainty  we  are  fully  assured.  It  is  written,  “ For  as 
many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also  perish  with- 
out law.  ...  In  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the 
secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ  according  to  my  gospel.” 
Rom.  ii.  12,  16. 

(6)  Those  living  under  the  written  law  of  the  Old 
Testament  will  be  judged  by  it.  In  the  parable  of  the 
Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  we  have  strong  testimony  as  to  the 
value  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  The  rich  man 
is  represented  as  entreating  Abraham  to  send  Lazarus 
to  warn  his  “ five  brethren,”  insisting  that  if  one  should 
go  to  them  from  the  dead,  they  would  repent.  Abraham’s 
answer  is  full  of  meaning : “ If  they  hear  not  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though  one 
rose  from  the  dead.”  Luke  xvi.  31.  It  is  plain  from 
these  words  that  those  who  lived  under  the  light  of 
the  Old  Testament  economy  enjoyed  advantages  unspeak- 
ably greater  than  did  surrounding  heathen  nations,  who 
were,  nevertheless,  without  excuse.  “As  many  as  have 
sinned  in  the  law  shall  be  judged  by  the  law.”  Rom.  ii. 
12.  A fearful  condemnation  awaits  those  who  would 
not  “ hear  Moses  and  the  prophets.”  If  the  heathen  are 
without  excuse,  much  more  inexcusable  are  those  whc 
neglected  Old  Testament  advantages.  The  day  of  judg 
ment  will  be  to  them  a terrible  day. 


396 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


(7?)  Those  living  under  the  Christian  economy  will  be 
judged  by  the  gospel.  Jesus  said,  “ He  that  rejectetn  me, 
and  receiveth  not  my  words,  hath  one  that  judgeth  him: 
the  word  that  I have  spoken,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in 
the  last  day.”  John  xii.  48.  I have  referred  to  the  judg- 
ment as  bringing  to  light  different  degrees  of  guilt,  but 
the  highest  degree  will  be  exhibited  in  connection  with  the 
abuse  of  gospel  privileges.  The  language  of  Christ  con- 
cerning Chorazin  and  Bethsaida  justifies  this  view  : “ But 
I say  unto  you,  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  T}^re  and 
Sidon  at  the  day  of  judgment  than  for  you.”  Of  Caper- 
naum he  said,  “ But  I say  unto  you.  That  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  in  the  da}r  of  judgment, 
than  for  thee.”  Matt.  xi.  22,  24.  In  perfect  accordance 
with  the  spirit  of  these  passages  it  is  written  : “ He  that 
despised  Moses’  law  died  without  mercy  under  two  or 
three  witnesses : of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  suppose 
ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy  who  hath  trodden  under 
foot  the  Son  of  God !”  etc.  Heb.  x.  28,  29.  The  sentence 
of  condemnation  pronounced  at  the  judgment  on  the 
rejecters  of  Christ  will  be  supremely  fearful.  It  is  writ- 
ten, “ If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him 
be  Anathema  Maranatha  [accursed,  the  Lord  cometh].” 
1 Cor.  xvi.  22.  As  Paul  wrote  under  divine  inspiration, 
the  intimation  here  clearly  is,  that  those  who  do  not  love 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will  be  accursed  in  the  day  of  his 
coming.  Alas  for  them  when  the  curse  of  God  falls  upon 
them,  comprehending,  as  it  will  do,  “the  wrath  of  the 
Lamb  ” ! Rev.  vi.  16.  What  a startling  collocation  of 
words  ! Who  knows  how  much  is  meant  by  “ the  wrath 
of  the  Lamb”?  The  Lamb  of  God,  the  Lamb  that  was 
slain,  the  Sufferer  of  Calvary,  will  be  the  Judge,  and 
when  he  pronounces  on  those  who  have  rejected  him  the 
sentence,  “ Depart,  ye  cursed,”  the  scene  wfill  be  incon- 


THE  GENERAL  JUDGMENT. 


397 


reivably  awful.  Good  were  it  for  those  whom  Jesus 
condemns  had  they  never  been  born.  Through  the 
ages  of  eternity  there  will  be  heard  no  words  more 
terrific  than  these : “ The  wrath  of  the  Lamb  ” ! 

The  judicial  decisions  of  the  last  day  will  fix  in  their 
final  state  all  the  millions  of  Adam’s  race.  The  wicked, 
we  are  told,  “ shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment : 
but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal.”  Matt.  xxv.  46. 

3.  Fallen  angels  will  be  judged.  In  this  topic  we  * cannot 
feel  so  deep  an  interest  as  in  the  topics  which  have  just 
engaged  bur  attention.  That  is  to  say,  matters  pertaining 
to  the  human  race  are  more  important  to  us  than  those 
which  concern  angelic  beings.  Still,  the  teachings  of 
Scripture  are  not  to  be  ignored,  and  from  them  we  learn, 
that  “ God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast 
them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of 
darkness,  to  be  reserved  unto  judgment;”  and  that  “the 
angels  who  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but  left  their  own 
habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlasting  chains  under 
darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.”  2 Pet.  ii. 
4;  Jude  6.  Here  two  leading  truths  are  stated:  that 
these  angels  sinned,  and  that  they  are  kept  in  custody  to 
the  day  of  judgment.  To  the  latter  truth,  there  seems  to 
be  reference  when  certain  demons  said  to  Jesus,  “Art 
thou  come  hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time  ?”  Matt, 
viii.  29.  The  natural  inference  from  this  question  is  that 
these  evil  spirits  were  looking  for  a period  of  augmented 
torment,  but  did  not  suppose  that  it  would  come  so  soon. 

It  will  enhance  the  awful  greatness  of  the  judgment- 
day  for  the  case  of  the  sinning  angels  to  be  adjudicated. 
There  have  been  many  useless  conjectures  as  to  the  origin 
of  sin  among  them,  the  reasons  of  their  revolt  from  the 
divine  government,  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
revolt,  and  the  number  engaged  in  it.  All  the  facts  bear- 

34 


398 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


ing  on  the  subject  will  be  brought  to  light  at  the  judg- 
ment, and  the  intelligent  moral  universe  will  see  that 
God  was  righteous  in  his  dealings  with  them — righteous 
in  holding  them  as  prisoners  of  his  justice  for  many  cen- 
turies, reserving  their  formal  trial  and  public  condemna- 
tion to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.  When  it  is  said, 
that  the  44  saints  shall  judge  angels,”  we  are  only  to  un- 
derstand that  they  will  concur  in  and  approve  the  sen- 
tence which  the  Judge  pronounces.  The  fallen  angels 
will,  like  ungodly  men,'  know  the  justice  of  their  doom, 
and  sink  in  self-accusing  agony  to  hell,  to  suffer  the  con- 
sequences of  their  rebellion.  The  more  we  contemplate 
the  transactions  of  the  day  of  judgment,  the  more  shall 
we  be  assured  that  of  all  days  it  deserves  to  be  called 
“the  great  day.”  God  grant  that  he  who  writes  and 
those  who  read  these  pages  4 may  find  mercy  of  the 
Lord  in  that  day  ” ! 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

HE  A VEN  AND - HET  r 

It  is  evident,  from  considerations  already  presented, 
that  the  decisions  of  the  judgment  will  be  final  and 
unchangeable.  In  accordance  with  these  decisions,  the 
righteous,  in  their  complete  glorified  persons,  will  be  ad- 
mitted into  heaven,  and  the  wicked  will  be  cast  into  hell. 
These  two  places  will  be  the  ultimate  receptacles  of  all 
the  human  race. 

Heaven. 

It  is  everywhere  assumed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  spe- 
cially in  the  New  Testament,  that  there  is  a heaven. 
Jesus  referred  to  himself  as  having  “come  down  from 
heaven,”  and  when  he  ascended  it  is  said,  that  he  was 
“carried  up  into  heaven.”  John  vi.  38;  Luke  xxiv.  51. 
During  his  ministry  he  said  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
“ Lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven.”  Matt.  vi. 
20.  At  another  time  he  spoke  of  the  enrolment  of  the 
names  of  his  disciples  “ in  heaven  ” as  the  source  of  their 
highest  joy.  Luke  x.  20.  .Paul  in  writing  to  the  Colos- 
sians  (i.  5)  uses  the  words,  “ the  hope  which  is  laid  up 
for  you  in  heaven.”  In  addition  to  this  use  of  the  term 
“heaven,”  there  are  many  other  terms  and  phrases  equiv- 
alent to  it  in  import,  but  to  these  I shall  not  refer  particu- 
larly. 


400 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


Some  have  considered  it  a debatable  question  whether 
heaven  is  a state  or  a place.  I see  no  objection  to  the 
union  of  the  two  views.  We  may  regard  heaven  as  a 
state  most  exalted  and  glorious,  but  it  is  also  a place. 
Jesus  said  to  his*  disciples,  “ In  my  Father’s  house  are 
many  mansions : if  it  were  not  so,  I would  have  told  you. 
I go  to  prepare  a place  for  you.  And  if  I go  and  prepare 
a place  for  you,  I will  come  again  and  receive  you  unto  my- 
self; that  where  I am,  there  ye  may  be  also.”  John  xiv. 
2,  3.  Christ  has  gone  to  prepare  for  his  followers  a place 
in  the  many  apartments  of  his  Father’s  house.  There  is 
one  truth  which  for  ever  settles  the  point  that  heaven  is  a 
place.  That  truth  is,  that  the  glorified  body  of  Jesus  is 
in  heaven.  His  body  is,  of  course,  a material  body,  com- 
posed of  matter,  however  refined,  for  otherwise  it  wTould 
not  be  a body.  But  whatever  is  material  is  local,  has  re- 
lation to  place.  The  two  ideas  of  the  material  and  the 
local  are  inseparable.  Heaven  as  a place  is  the  most  glo- 
rious of  all  places,  the  select  locality  in  the  wide  realm 
of  the  universe.  Its  attractions  are  unspeakably  great, 
and  the  following  are  some  of  them : 

1.  It  is  a place  of  enlarged  knowledge.  “ That  the  soul  be 
wuthout  knowledge,  it  is  not  good.”  Prov.  xix.  2.  This  is 
said  of  knowledge  in  this  world.  A thirst  for  knowledge 
is  one  of  the  things  which  distinguish  men  from  the 
beasts  that  perish.  The  knowledge  pertaining  to  this 
world  answers  important  purposes,  but  “the  excellency 
of  knowledge”  has  to  do  with  Christ  and  salvation.  Phil, 
iii.  6.  Saints  on  earth,  as  compared  with  sinners,  know 
much  ; yet,  as  compared  with  saints  in  heaven,  they  know 
but  little.  There  are  many  Scriptures  which  indicate  the 
imperfect  knowledge  of  Christians  in  the  present  state 
They  are  said  to  “ know  in  part,”  and  not  to  know  now 
what  they  shall  know  hereafter,  while  the  assurance  is 


HEAVEN  AND  HELL . 


401 


given  that  “it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be.”  1 
Cor.  xiii.  12,  John  xiii.  7 ; 1 John  iii.  2. 

Limitations  are  imposed  on  the  attainment  of  know- 
ledge on  earth  which  will  be  removed  in  heaven.  The 
intellect  will  no  longer  be  fettered  in  its  action  by  the 
body,  for  the  latter,  as  we  have  seen,  will  be  made  spir- 
itual and  incorruptible.  The  acquisition  of  knowledge 
in  heaven  will  be  amazing.  The  saints  in  their  ignorance 
now  cannot  conceive  how  much  they  will  know  then. 
When  Paul  says,  in  a passage  just  referred  to,  “Now  I 
know  in  part,  but  then  shall  I know  even  as  also  I am 
known,”  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  he  could  have  ex- 
pressed more  fully  the  vast  extent  of  his  future  know- 
ledge. To  know  as  he  is  known  seems  to  be  as  much  as 
even  Gabriel  or  Michael  can  say. 

The  saints  in  heaven  will  know  a thousand  times  more 
about  the  works  and  ways  of  God  than  they  can  know  in 
this  life.  As  the  light  of  eternity  falls  on  these  works  and 
ways,  now  in  great  part  obscured,  how  often  will  be  heard 
the  exclamation,  “ Great  and  marvellous  are  thy  works, 
Lord  God  Almighty;  just  and  true  are  thy  ways,  thou 
King  of  saints”!  Rev.  xv.  3.  In  heaven  the  many  per- 
plexing problems  now  connected  with  dark  providences 
will  receive  solutions  so  satisfactory,  so  brilliant,  as  to  call 
forth  the  most  rapturous  hallelujahs.  There  will  be  a 
constantly  increasing  knowledge  of  the  wonders  of  re- 
demption, for  the  subject  of  salvation  is  inexhaustible. 
It  will  be  fresh  when  a million  centuries  have  passed 
away,  and  fresh  to  endless  ages. 

“ The  cross,  the  manger,  and  the  throne 
Are  big  with  wonders  yet  unknown.” 

Truly,  heaven  is  a place  of  enlarged  knowledge. 

2.  It  is  a place  of  perfect  holiness . Earth  is  full  of  sin. 

34* 


402 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


The  effects  of  sin  are  seen  everywhere,  and  will  be  seen 
till  the  earth  is  destroyed  by  fire,  when  from  the  burning 
mass  will  emerge,  according  to  the  promise  of  God,  “ a 
new  earth  ” more  beauteous  than  Eden  in  its  primeval 
glory.  But  this  blessed  change  is  in  the  future.  Sin  is 
in  the  wrorld  now.  It  has  dominion  over  the  impenitent. 
In  the  regenerate  its  power  is  broken,  but  how  bitterly 
they  often  have  to  deplore  its  polluting  presence  in  their 
hearts ! Sin  is  their  worst  enemy.  In  heaven  there  will 
be  no  sin.  It  is  a holy  place.  The  angels  are  holy.  The 
redeemed  are  without  fault  before  the  throne.  Ihe  holi- 
ness of  heaven  is  one  of  its  most  powerful  attractions. 
How  deeply  are  we  impressed  with  the  purity  of  the 
place  when  we  remember  that  our  souls  cannot  enter  into 
it  till  the  last  stain  of  sin  is  washed  from  them,  and  that 
our  bodies  must  be  resolved  into  dust,  and  then  be  recon- 
structed without  a taint  of  sin,  before  they  can  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God ! However  much  Christians  may 
now  be  annoyed  and  distressed  by  sin,  when  they  enter 
heaven  they  will  be  troubled  by  it  no  more.  They  will 
dwell  for  ever  in  the  realms  of  perfect  purity. 

3.  It  is  a place  of  holy  love.  In  this  respect,  how  greatly  it 
differs  from  earth ! Here  hatred  often  prevails  among  na- 
tions and  individuals.  Injustice  in  its  many  forms  may 
be  traced  to  it.  “ Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self ” is  a command  the  violation  of  which  it  has  been  the 
chief  business  of  history  to  record.  Feelings  of  hatred 
rankling  in  the  human  breast  have  too  often  made  earth 
an  Aceldama — “ a field  of  blood.”  Nor  can  it  be  said  that 
the  passion  of  hatred  is  entirely  extinct  in  the  regene- 
rate people  of  God.  Who  has  not  seen  proofs  of  its  ex- 
istence in  various  forms  of  envy,  jealousy,  and  evil-speak- 
ing? Alas  ! love  among  brethren  is  by  no  means  perfect 
on  earth.  But  in  heaven  there  is  an  undisturbed  reign  of 


HEAVES  AND  HELL. 


103 


holy  love.  All  the  inhabitants  of  that  bright  world  love 
God  supremely  and  love  one  another  subordinately.  Every 
saint  can  there  say,  “ I love  every  one  of  these  saints,  and 
every  one  of  them  loves  me.”  The  satisfaction  arising 
from  this  consciousness  will  never  be  disturbed  by  a single 
doubt  or  a solitary  suspicion.  I do  not  wonder  that  Row- 
land Hill  said,  “ My  chief  conception  of  heaven  is  that 
it  is  a place  of  love.” 

4.  It  is  a place  of  perfect  rest  and  endless  joy . Earth  is  the 
place  for  labor,  toil,  fatigue,  but  there  “remaineth  a rest 
to  the  people  of  God.”  Heb.  iv.  9.  John,  listening  to  a 
voice  from  heaven,  wrote,  “ Blessed  are  the  dead  which 
die  in  the  Lord  from  henceforth.  Yea,  saith  the  Spirit, 
that  they  may  rest  from  their  labors.”  Rev.  xiv.  13. 

“ In  heaven  there’s  rest : that  thought  hath  a power 
To  scatter  the  shades  of  life’s  dreariest  hour.” 

Baxter  well  said,  “0  glorious  rest!  where  they  rest  not 
day  nor  night,  crying,  Holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord  God  Al- 
mighty !”  The  joy  of  heaven  will  be  fulness  of  joy.  All 
the  faculties  of  glorified  saints  will  be  filled  with  it.  There 
'will  be  a rich  plenitude  of  bliss.  The  joy  of  heaven  will 
be  endless.  The  joy  of  earth  is  imperfect  while  it  lasts, 
and  soon  passes  away.  The  joy  of  heaven  is  perpetual. 
Through  the  long  cycle  of  everlasting  years  it  will  con- 
tinue, ever  increasing  as  the  capacity  of  the  saints  to  en- 
joy will  increase.  The  blessedness  of  heaven  depends 
much  on  the  eternity  of  its  joy.  Tnat  blessedness  would 
be  greatly  impaired  if  the  joy  were  to  end  when  ten 
thousand  times  ten  thousand  centuries  pass  away. 
Truly  has  it  been  said, 

“ Perpetuity  of  bliss  is  bliss.” 

5.  It  is  a place  of  blessed,  companionships . We  are  made 


404 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


for  society,  Christianity  does  not  destroy  the  social  prin- 
ciple, but  sanctifies  it  on  earth,  and  will  perfectly  sanctify 
it  in  heaven.  There  are  many  allusions  in  the  Scriptures 
to  the  social  enjoyments  of  the  heavenly  state.  The  select 
society  of  the  universe  is  in  heaven.  We  read  of  angels, 
principalities,  powers,  cherubim,  seraphim.  These  terms 
most  probably  denote  the  various  orders  of  heavenly  in- 
telligences. But  in  addition  to  these  there  will  be  a 
multitude  of  the  redeemed  which  no  man  can  number. 
How  blessed  will  be  the  associations  of  heaven ! How 
delightful  for  the  saints  to  cultivate  an  acquaintance 
with  the  very  angels  who  rejoiced  over  the  beginning  of 
their  saintship  in  their  repentance ! The  social  inter- 
course of  the  redeemed  with  one  another  will  be  pro- 
ductive of  exquisite  enjoyment.  They  will  renew  their 
acquaintance  with  those  whom  they  have  known  on 
earth,  and  of  whom  the}^  have  heard  and  read,  while 
they  will  form  new  acquaintances  among  the  millions 
of  unknown  ones,  to  whom  they  will  be  drawn  by  the 
fact  that  they  were  all  redeemed  by  the  precious  blood 
of  a common  Mediator.  How  blessed  will  be  the  com- 
panionships of  heaven ! 

6.  It  is  the  place  in  which  the  divine  glory  is  displayed  in 
the  highest  degree . The  glory  of  God  is  a manifestation  of 
his  perfections,  or  rather  it  is  the  splendor  resulting  from 
the  manifestation.  Hence  it  is  said,  “ The  heavens  de- 
clare the  glory  of  God that  is,  they  exhibit  such  per- 
fections as  his  wisdom  and  power.  In  the  plan  of  re- 
demption there  is  a much  brighter  display  of  the  glory 
of  God  than  is  to  be  seen  in  the  firmament,  which  is  the 
work  of  his  hands.  There  is  an  exhibition  of  moral  per- 
fections, which  must  ever  eclipse  a manifestation  of  nat- 
ural attributes.  We  therefore  read  of  “the  glory  of  God 
in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.”  2 Cor.  iv.  6.  It  is  such  an 


HE  A YEN  AND  HELL. 


405 


exhibition  as  the  universe  never  saw  before — the  glory  of 
God  in  the  face  of  the  crucified  Christ.  Now,  in  heaven 
there  is  a still  fuller  and  brighter  manifestation  of  the 
divine  perfections.  This  is  often  called  glory — the  glory 
of  God.  Christians  are  said  to  rejoice  “ in  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God.”  Rom.  v.  2.  Jesus  prayed  for  his  disciples, 
saying, u Father,  I will  that  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me 
be  with  me  where  I am ; that  they  may  behold  my  glory 
which  thou  hast  given  me.”  John  xvii.  24.  It  is  plain, 
therefore,  that  heaven  is  a place  in  which  the  divine  glory 
is  supremely  displayed — the  glory  .of  God,  the  glory  of 
Christ,  who  is  God.  It  is  manifest,  too,  that  the  inhab- 
itants of  heaven  will  ever  find  their  highest  happiness 
in  beholding  the  exhibitions  of  this  glory.  That  is  what 
the  “ old  theologians  ” properly  termed  “ the  beatific 
vision.”  It  will  be  productive  of  such  happiness  as 
language  has  never  described  nor  imagination  con- 
ceived. 

Hell. 

While  it  is  a delightful  privilege  to  refer  to  heaven  as 
the  abode  of  the  righteous,  it  is  a solemn  duty  to  recog- 
nize the  teachings  of  the  Bible  concerning  hell  as  the 
place  in  which  the  wicked  will  be  punished.  The  proper 
tendency  of  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  is  to  deter 
from  sin,  even  as  the  doctrine  of  future  blessedness  in 
heaven  should  stimulate  and  allure  to  holiness.  Ob- 
viously, all  that  can  be  known  of  hell  as  & “ place  of  tor- 
ment” must  be  ascertained  from  the  Scriptures.  Our  own 
unaided  reasonings  are  not  trustworthy,  and  those  who 
die  in  their  sins  come  not  back  from  the  eternal  world  to 
tell  us  of  their  experiences  there. 

That  there  is  a hell  is  undeniable  in  view  of  the  follow 
ing  scriptures : “ For  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of 
thy  members  should  perish,  and  not  that  thy  whole  body 


406 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


should  be  cast  into  hell ;”  “And  fear  not  them  which  kill 
the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul : but  rather  fear 
him  who  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell;” 
“ Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape 
the  damnation  of  hell  ?”  (Matt.  v.  29 ; x.  28 ; xxiii.  33) ; 
“And  if  thy  hand  offend  [ensnare]  thee,  cut  it  off:  it  is 
better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than  having  two 
hands  to  go  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that  never  shall  be 
quenched  ” (Mark  ix.  43) ; “ Fear  him,  which  after  he 
hath  killed  hath  power  to  cast  into  hell;  yea,  I say  unto 
you,  Fear  him.”  Luke  xii.  5. 

These  passages  prove  beyond  doubt  that  there  is  a hell, 
and  that  it  is  an  inexpressibly  dreadful  place ; for  we  are 
taught  that  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  avoid  it  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  mutilation,  or  even  the  killing,  of  the  body. 
That  it  is  a place  of  excruciating  pain  is  clear,  because  it 
is  described  as  “the  fire  that  shall  never  be  quenched.” 
Here,  as  well  as  anywhere,  I may  notice  the  oft-repeated 
assertion,  that  what  Christ  says  of  unquenchable  fire  is  to 
be  understood,  not  literally,  but  figuratively.  Suppose 
this  is  conceded ; and  I do  concede  it — that  is  to  say,  I 
dc  not  think  that  Jesus  referred  either  to  literal  “ fire  ” 
or  a literal  “ worm.”  But  what  follows?  That  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked  will  be  less  dreadful  than  if  they 
should  be  cast  into  literal,  material  fire  ? By  no  means 
The  philosophy  of  language  rather  prompts  us  to  inquire, 
If  the  symbol  of  punishment  be  so  fearful,  what  must  the 
reality  be?  Worse,  far  worse.  It  is  impossible  for  any 
symbol  to  exaggerate  the  idea  of  pain  which  Christ  in- 
tended to  convey.  Satan  may  try  to  delude  men,  and 
men  may  try  to  delude  themselves,  into  the  belief  that 
there  is  nothing  alarming  in  the  miseries  of  hell ; but  it 
is  tremendously  true  that  these  miseries  defy  description 
and  surpass  adequate  conception.  It  is  specially  worthy 


HEA  YEN  AND  HELL. 


407 


of  notice  that  the  most  awful  things  in  the  Bible  concern- 
ing the  punishment  of  the  wicked  are  the  words  of  Jesus, 
He  was  love  incarnate,  but  he  spoke  of  “ outer  darkness,” 
“ weeping,  wailing,  and  gnashing  of  teeth,”  a “ place  of 
torment,”  “the  worm  that  dieth  not,”  “the  fire  that  is 
not  quenched,”  “everlasting  punishment,”  “eternal  dam- 
nation.” Matt.  viii.  12;  Luke  xvi.  28;  Mark  ix.  44;  Matt, 
xxv.  46  ; Mark  iii.  29.  These  are  expressions  of  startling 
significance.  Indeed,  the  future  retribution  of  the  wicked 
is  a most  copious  as  w7ell  as  awful  subject,  which  I shall 
discuss  only  so  far  as  to  refer  briefly  to  the  words  of 
Christ  as  recorded  in  Matt.  xxv.  46:  “These  shall  go 
awray  into  everlasting  punishment.”  Here  two  points 
claim  attention : 

1.  The  wicked  will  he  punished.  What  is  punishment? 
It  is  the  infliction  of  pain  for  disobedience.  Thus  a 
father  punishes  a disobedient  child.  Pain  inflicted  with- 
out regard  to  disobedience  would  be  calamity,  and  not 
punishment.  Punishment  has  reference  to  sin,  and  under 
the  government  of  God  it  is  the  executed  penalty  of  his 
law'.  It  is  God  who  executes  this  penalty,  which  is 
death,  eternal  death.  Strange  views  on  this  subject  are 
held  by  some,  for  they  think  that  the  wicked  will  only 
be  punished  by  painful  memories,  remorse  of  conscience, 
agony  of  despair.  No  doubt,  memory  has  to  do  with  the 
miseries  of  the  lost,  but  an  operation  of  memory  is  not 
the  penalty  of  the  divine  law.  Remorse  of  conscience  is 
inseparable  from  the  penalty,  but  it  is  not  the  penalty. 
Has  a murderer’s  remorse  of  conscience  ever  exhausted 
the  penalty  of  the  law  of  murder?  Never.  The  thing  is 
impossible.  Nor  is  the  despair  w'hich  lost  sinners  feel  the 
penalty  of  God’s  lawr.  How  can  despair  as  to  a change  in 
their  doom  satisfy  the  law,  a violation  of  which  deter- 
mined their  doom?  The  thing  cannot  be.  All  tlies^ 


408 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES . 


views  fail  to  meet  the  point.  The  truth  is,  that  the 
penalty  of  God’s  law  is  death.  “The  wages  of  sin  is 
death ; but  the  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.”  Rom.  vi.  23.  That  eternal  death  is 
referred  to  is  evident  from  its  contrast  with  eternal  life. 
There  :an  be  no  consistent  interpretation  of  the  passage 
which  does  not  make  the  death  and  the  life  equal  in 
duration.  God  executes  the  penalty  of  his  law.  He 
inflicts  on  his  incorrigible  enemies  the  punishment  they 
deserve.  He  punishes  them  because  they  deserve  to  be 
punished.  This  is  the  only  true  philosophy  of  punish- 
ment. Incidental  effects  may  result  from  punishment, 
but  the  supreme  reason  why  sinners  are  punished  is  that, 
because  of  their  sins,  they  deserve  punishment.  God  as 
moral  Governor  of  the  universe  executes  the  penalty  of 
his  law.  This  fact  enables  us  to  understand  what  is 
meant  by  “the  wrath  of  God.”  This  is  a scriptural 
phrase,  and  it  denotes  God’s  just  and  holy  indignation 
against  sin.  This  indignation  arises  from  the  fact  that 
sin  is  a transgression  of  his  law ; and  therefore  his  jus- 
tice and  holiness — yes,  and  his  goodness  too — impera- 
tively require  that  incorrigible  sinners  be  punished.  Ac- 
cording to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  they  will  be 
punished  as  their  demerits  require.  This  shows  that 
punishment  will  be  graduated  by  the  degree  of  ill-desert 
— graduated  in  intensity,  though  not  in  duration ; foi  the 
second  point  claiming  attention  is — 

2.  The  punishment  will  be  everlasting . The  words  of 
Jesus  are,  “These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punish- 
ment.” Matt.  xxv.  46.  Of  the  wicked,  Paul  says,  “ Who 
shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power.” 
2 Thess.  i.  9.  The  destruction  referred  to  is  not  annihila- 
tion, for  it  is  everlasting  destruction.  The  process  of 


HEAVEN  AND  HELL. 


409 


destruction  will  go  on  for  ever.  It  is  scarcely  necessary 
to  refer  to  the  doctrine  of  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked, 
for  it  has  no  scriptural  support.  Its  advocates  can  give 
no  example  of  annihilation  in  the  world  of  matter;  and 
to  suppose  that  mind  or  spirit  will  cease  to  be,  is  as  con- 
trary to  philosophy  as  it  is  to  the  word  of  God. 

When  Jesus  says, “ These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal,”  he 
employs  one  and  the  same  word,  which  in  the  Common 
Version  of  the  Bible  is  translated  “everlasting”  and 
“ eternal.”  The  same  word  is  used  in  Rom.  xvi.  26, 
where  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  “ everlasting  God,” 
while  in  passages  too  numerous  to  quote  it  is,  in  its 
application  to  the  future  life  of  the  saints,  translated 
“ everlasting  ” and  “ eternal.”  Now  the  question  is  this : 
Does  a word  which,  when  applied  to  God  and  to  the 
future  life  of  the  saints,  denotes  endless  duration,  as  all 
admit,  indicate  limited  duration  when  it  is  applied  to 
the  punishment  of  the  wicked?  He  who  answers  this 
question  affirmatively  must  do  so  in  conflict  wTith  Scrip- 
ture, reason,  and  common  sense. 

Interpretation  of  language  is  not  a matter  of  feeling. 
Sound  exegesis  does  not  permit  us  to  consider  what  we 
may  wish  any  passage  of  Scripture  to  mean,  but  it  re- 
stricts our  attention  to  the  question,  What  does  it  mean? 
what  is  the  import  of  its  words?  Much  that  is  now 
(1878)  said  and  . written  against  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  is  a vain  attempt  to  magnify  God’s  goodness 
at  the  expense  of  his  justice  and  truth ; whereas  God 
would  cease  to  be  good  if  he  should  cease  to  be  just  and 
true.  In  other  words,  his  justice  and  truth  cannot  be 
severed  from  his  goodness.  Alas  for  those  who,  under 
the  frown  of  God,  sink  to  hell!  They  come  not  out  of 
the  prison,  the  gloom}7  prison  of  despair.  They  “ will  be 
35 


410 


CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 


punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power.”  What 
fearful  words  are  these ! Away  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  his  glorious  presence,  in  which  the  saints  will 
rejoice  for  ever  ! — 

“ As  far  from  God  and  light  of  heaven 
As  far  from  the  centre  thrice  :o  the  utmost  pole.” 

There  is  no  probation  after  death.  He  that  dies  in  hia 
sins  remains  in  his  sins  for  ever.  Moral  character  is  un- 
changeable in  eternity.  The  righteous  continue  righteous, 
the  wicked  continue  wicked. 

What  is  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  ? Jesus 
taught,  by  solemn  affirmation  and  solemn  negation,  the 
doctrine  of  the  endless  punishment  of  the  wicked,  saying, 
“ These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,” 
they  “ shall  not  see  life,”  “ their  worm  dieth  not,”  “ the  fire 
is  not  quenched.”  These  are  the  words  of  the  benevolent 
Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man. 

u Come,  sinners,  seek  his  grace 
Whose  wrath  ye  cannot  bear ; 

Fly  to  the  shelter  of  his  cross, 

And  find  salvation  there.” 


General  Index 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


A. 

Abel,  104,  169. 

Abraham,  37,  44,  104,  142. 

justified  by  faith,  283. 

Absalom,  142. 

Activity  of  angels,  144. 

Adam,  all  sinned  in,  169. 

and  Eve  sinned  first  in  heart,  166. 
and  Eve  died  spiritual  death  when 
they  sinned,  168. 
head  of  all  nations,  171. 
judgment  on,  167. 
representative  of  his  race,  171. 
Saviour  promised  to,  186. 
sinned  intelligently  and  volunta- 
rily, 165. 

the  first  brings  ruin,  the  last 
brings  salvation,  170. 
type  of  Christ,  173. 
why  his  descendants  suffer  in  him, 
172. 

Adoption,  civil  and  spiritual,  resem- 
blances and  difference  be- 
tween, 291,  292. 
civil,  practised  by  the  an- 
cients, 290. 

of  Esther  and  of  Moses,  291. 
privileges  of,  292-297. 

Ananias,  92. 

Angel,  meaning  of  the  word,  138. 

Angels,  holy,  138. 

activity  and  power  of,  144. 
are  spirits,  139. 
convey  spirits  of  saints  to 
heaven,  150. 
goodness  of  God  to,  53. 
great  knowledge  of,  142. 
guard  the  steps  of  saints,  149. 
immortality  of,  141. 
increase  in  knowledge,  143. 
ministry  of,  148. 
minister  to  saints  at  Christ’s 
second  coming,  150. 
refuse  worship,  89. 
sinless  obedience  of,  146. 
sinful,  151. 


Angels,  sinful,  shall  be  judged,  156. 
Annihilation  of  the  wicked,  no  scrij* 
tural  support,  409. 

Annotated  Paragraph  Bible,  189. 

Antony,  Mark,  169. 

Aquila,  330. 

Arius,  doctrine  of,  73. 

Artaxerxes,  191. 

Atonement,  antitype  and  consummation 
of  all  sacrifices,  238. 
appointed  by  God,  239. 
believers  receive  benefit  of, 
221. 

by  animal  sacrifices,  cere- 
monial, 240. 
by  Christ,  real,  240. 
cannot  be  offered  to  fallen 
angels,  244. 

Christ  assumes  sinner’s  place 
in,  226. 

Christ,  deity  of,  essential  to, 

241. 

expiation  for  sin,  224. 
extent  of,  241. 

faith  involves  reliance  on, 
244. 

four  centuries  of  preparation 
for,  239. 

Fuller,  Andrew,  on,  242. 

God  pleased  with,  248. 
gospel  imitations  rest  on, 

242. 

Hall,  Robert,  on,  242. 
involves  «”bstitution,  227. 
Lawgiver  receives  it,  221. 
love  of  God  originating  * 
cause  of,  229. 
made  for  man,  244. 
man’s  unwillingness  the 
only  obstacle  to,  243. 
meaning  of,  221. 
measure  above  law,  223. 
necessity  of,  228. 

how  it  originates,  229. 
trace  to  nature  of  God, 
230. 

what  it  means,  229. 

411 


412 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Atonen  ent  offered  to  all  the  world,  244. 

refers  to  both  God  and  man, 

233. 

sufficiency  of,  undoubted, 
242. 

use  of  word  by  Junius,  222. 
use  of  word  by  Shakespeare, 
221. 

used  only  once  in  New  Tes- 
tament, 221. 
value  of,  238,  241. 

proved  by  dignity  of  the 
person,  240. 

what  it  accomplishes,  230. 
Attractions  of  heaven,  400-404. 

Attribute,  meaning  of,  42. 

Attributes  of  God,  co-operate  in  salvation 
of  sinners,  230. 
moral — goodness,  53. 
holiness,  61. 
justice,  56. 
veracity,  58. 
wisdom,  60. 
natural — eternity,  44. 
immutability,  46. 
omnipotence,  49. 
omnipresence,  48. 
omniscience,  51. 
self-existence,  43. 
unity,  45. 

Augustus,  decree  of,  193. 

B, 

Baptism,  342. 

a burial,  348,  351. 
act  of,  342. 

avowal  of  allegiance,  93. 
commemorates  the  resurrec- 
tion, 349,  350. 

connected  with  the  Trinity, 
66,  67,  71. 

first  public  duty  of  a believer, 
363. 

household,  355. 
immersion  essential  to,  351. 
John's,  362. 

Mode  of,  by  Dr.  Moses  Stuart, 
347. 

profession  of  faith  in  Christ, 
219. 

should  precede  the  Lord’s  Sup- 
per, 363. 
subjects  of,  351. 
symbolism  of,  348-351. 
token  of  submission  to  Christ, 
219. 

Baptist  Quarterly , 207. 

Baplizo,  anglicized,  343. 

as  used  in  classics,  347. 

Con  ant’s,  Dr.,  investigation  of, 
347, 

meaning  of,  342. 
means  same  in  New  Testament 
as  in  classics,  348. 

Barnabas  refuses  worship,  88. 

Beersheba,  44. 

Bethlehem-Ephratah,  80,  81. 


Bethlehem-Ephratah,  birthplace  of 
Christ,  192. 

Bible,  Annotated  Paragraph,  189. 

authority  of,  cannot  be  questioned 
41. 

deists’  opinion  of,  24. 
doctrine  of  Trinity  taught  in,  64. 
doctrines  in  it  that  the  human  in- 
tellect cannot  grasp,  32. 
enemies  of,  23. 

human  heart  would  not  prompt  tc 
its  production,  34. 
hi  man  intellect  could  not  produce, 
31,  35. 

if  a revelation,  must  be  'nspir^d, 
39,  41. 

necessity  of  revelation  in,  25. 
rationalist  opinion  of,  24. 
reveals  the  character  of  God  25. 
revelation  from  God,  25,  31,  36. 
revelation  of  Christ,  36. 
word  “Trinity”  not  found  in,  66. 
Bishop,  use  of  word  in  New  Testament, 
337. 

originally  synonymous  with  pas- 
tor and  elder,  337. 

Blind  man  cured  through  faith,  285. 
Body  disorganized  in  the  grave,  378. 
left  by  spirit  at  death,  376. 
made  of  dust,  378. 
same  which  dies  shall  rise  again, 
380. 

the  immortal,  386-388. 

Boyce,  Rev.  Dr.  James  P.,  on  the  dual 
nature  of  Christ,  206. 

Burial  commemorated  in  baptism,  349. 
no  baptism  without,  351. 

c. 

Calvin  on  repentance  and  regeneration 
256. 

Campbell,  Dr.  George,  on  repentance,  264, 

268. 

Cain,  104,  169. 

Cause  and  effect,  belief  of,  inherent,  12. 

the  first, .13. 

Caesar,  Julius,  169. 
on  death,  27. 

Chalmers,  Dr.  Thomas  view  of  the  cit- 
ation, 124 

Chance,  doctrine  of,  20 
Channing,  Dr.,  65. 

Christ,  agony  of,  when  forsaken  of  God, 
236. 

all  sacrifices  types  of  the  death 
of,  238. 

all  things  created  for,  126 
alone  can  mediate  between  God 
and  man,  208. 
answer  to  the  Tempter,  87. 

Arian  doctrine  of,  73. 
as  mediator  must  be  capable  of 
death,  210. 

as  prophet  approved  by  the  Fath- 
er, 214. 

as  prophet  teaches  the  world  con 
cerning  God,  213. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


413 


Cb’ist  assumes  humanity  to  accomplish 
redemption,  207. 
atonement  ottered  to  all  by,  244. 
Author  of  eternal  life,  80. 
authority  of,  to  intercede,  248. 
authority  of  teachings  of,  214. 
avows  his  kingly  office  before 
Pilate,  215. 

basis  of  intercession  of,  247. 
Boyce,  Dr.  James  P.,  on  the  two 
natures  of,  206. 
character  of,  37. 

chief  functions  of  priestly  office 
of,  221. 

church  of,  218. 

commands  his  disciples  to  bap- 
tize, 219. 

commands  to  observe  what  he 
has  taught,  219. 

Creator,  85. 

death  of,  consummation  of  all 
sacrifices,  239. 

display  of  divine  justice,  57. 
display  of  divine  wisdom,  61. 
shows  the  evil  of  sin,  288. 
Socinians  and  Unitarians  on, 
227. 

dead  will  be  raised  by,  86. 
deity  of,  72. 

gives  value  to  atonement, 
241. 

New  Testament  concerning, 
77. 

owned  by  Thomas,  241. 
proved  by  salvation  of  sin- 
ners, 72-74. 
died  in  our  stead,  227. 
divine  attributes  of,  80-84. 
divine  names  given  to,  75. 
divine  works  performed  by,  84. 
doctrine  of  Trinity  taught  by,  66. 
Elder  Brother,  293. 
eternity  of,  80. 

expounded  scriptures  concern- 
ing himself,  188. 
foretold  by  Moses,  212. 
for  whom  he  intercedes,  251. 
foundation  of  hope,  303. 

God  and  man  inseparable  in,  198. 
holiness  essential  to  mediation 
of,  209. 

human  soul  of,  200,  201. 
if  not  God,  the  worst  of  men,  89. 
immutability  of,  84. 
inconceivable  to  mortals,  38. 
increase  in  wisdom  of,  203. 
intercedes  in  heaven,  247. 
intercession  of,  246. 
intercessory  prayer  of,  252. 
Jewish  high  priest,  type  of,  247. 
a King,  215. 

kingdom  of,  not  of  this  world, 
215.* 

kingly  authority  of,  over  his 
church,  217. 

Lamb  of  God,  239. 

last  petition  for  disci  pies  by,  254. 

Lawgiver,  220. 


Christ,  mediatorial  kingdom  of,  215. 
mediatorial  office  of,  208. 

Moses  and  Elijah  render  homage 
to,  213. 

mysterious  person  of,  208. 
not  personally  guilty,  but  legally 
answerable,  226. 
object  of  worship,  86. 
official  perfection  of,  through 
sufferings,  227. 
omnipotence  of,  83. 
our  heirship  with,  296. 
our  sins  laid  on,  225. 
person  of,  36,  198,  208. 
power  of,  to  save,  87. 

Preserver,  85. 

Priest,  214. 

promise  of  God  given  in,  59. 
Prophet,  212. 

propitiation  for  our  sins,  248. 
qualifications  of,  as  Intercessor, 

248. 

received  through  faith,  284. 
repentance  preached  by,  264. 
righteousness  of  character  of, 

249. 

righteousness  of,  imputed  to  sin- 
ners, 280. 

self-disposal  essential  to  media- 
tion of,  209. 

silence  of,  under  bodily  sufferings, 
236. 

sinlessness  of,  38. 
submission  required  by,  219. 
subordination  of,  to  the  Father, 
216. 

sufferings  of,  determined  before 
the  world  began,  236. 
sympathy  of,  250,  251. 
testimony  of  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments concerning,  75. 
two  natures,  but  one  person,  203. 
typified  in  Adam,  173. 
typified  by  the  brazen  serpent; 
271. 

union  with,  324. 

unity  between  the  Father  and, 
254. 

was  only  the  appearance  of  man 
assumed  by?  200. 

Word,  213. 

worshipped  by  angels,  88. 
Christian  character,  graces  of,  302. 
Christians,  death  of,  368. 

may  glorify  God  in  death, 
369-371. 

sealed  or  set  apart,  326. 
Church,  a,  has  the  right  to  receive,  ex- 
clude, and  restore  members, 
338-340. 

action  of,  final,  338,  340. 
discipline  of,  341. 
first  mention  of,  in  New  lesta- 
ment,  217. 

government,  three  forms  of,  337. 
governmental  power  of,  with 
members,  338. 
meaning  of  word,  218,  329. 


414 


GENERAL  INDEX . 


Church,  nature  of,  determined  by  Christ, 

220. 

officers  of,  331. 

qualifications  for  membership, 
331. 

Churches,  330. 

Cicero,  28. 

Classic  authors  on  meaning  of  baplizo , 
347. 

Comforter,  the,  Holy  Spirit,  91. 

Conant,  Dr.  T.  J.,  125,  326. 

on  repentance,  265. 
Consubstantiation,  359. 

Cornelius,  88. 

Peter  preaching  to,  355. 
Creator  known  by  his  creations,  13. 
Creation  ascribed  to  Christ,  85. 

centres  around  the  cross  of 
Christ,  126. 

explained  by  the  Bible  only, 
116. 

gives  the  right  of  control,  130. 
reek  and  Roman  philosophers 
on,  115. 

incomprehensible  to  man,  116. 

of  dry  land,  119. 

of  the  firmament,  119. 

of  light,  118. 

of  living  creatures,  121. 

of  man,  123. 

of  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  120. 
Mosaic  account  of,  117. 
necessary  to  execution  of  God’s 
purposes,  115. 

preservation  inseparable  from, 
129. 

promotes  the  glory  of  God,  126. 
proof  of  the  omnipotence  of 
God,  50. 

time  occupied  in,  124. 
understood  by  faith,  117. 
what  is  ? 115. 

Crispus,  his  family,  356. 

Cross,  all  creation  centres  around  the, 
126. 

the,  foretold  by  prophets,  195. 
Crucifixion,  not  a Jewish  punishment, 
195. 

Cyrus,  191. 

D. 

Dagg’s,  Dr.  John  L.,  Theology , 63. 

Darius,  191. 

David,  15,  32,  40,  49,  60,  142,  145,  147. 

Messiah  descended  from  family  of, 
190. 

repentance  of,  266. 

Deacons,  character  of,  336. 
office  of,  335. 
work  of,  336. 

Death  of  Christians,  368. 

everything  fearful  in,  comes  from 
sin,  369. 

how  believers  may  glorify  God  in, 

369-371. 

how  sting  of,  is  removed,  370. 
penalty  of  sin,  167. 
spiritual,  167. 


Demon,  153. 

Desire  of  all  nations,  the,  191. 

Deyil,  the,  cannot  compel  men  to  sin 
155. 

great  influence  of,  154. 
translation  of  the  word,  153. 

Dick,  Dr.  John,  his  Theology , 58. 

on  baptism  and  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  365. 

Differences,  private,  how  to  adjust  in 
churches,  341. 

Discipline,  church,  341. 

Divine  Government , McCosh  on,  132. 
Divine  soul  ascribed  to  Christ,  201. 
Doddridge,  Dr.,  153. 

on  baptism  and  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  365. 

Duty  to  men  grows  out  of  duty  to  God,  26. 
Dwight,  Dr.,  on  baptism  and  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  365. 

E. 

Eden  closed  to  man,  168. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  on  repentance  and 
regeneration,  257. 

Elder,  337. 

originally  synonymous  with  bish- 
op and  pastor,  334,  337. 
rights  of,  337. 

Election,  Arminian  view  of,  108. 

does  not  imply  rejection,  106. 
eternal,  107. 

faith  and  good  works  not  the 
ground  of,  107. 
not  arbitrary,  108. 
personal,  106. 

purpose  of,  irreversible,  108. 
Elijah  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration, 
213 

Elisha,  150. 

Epicurus,  128. 

Episcopacy,  337. 

Esther,  adoption  of,  291. 

Eternity  of  God,  44,  80. 

proves  his  unity,  46; 

Eve,  152. 

deceived  by  the  serpent,  165. 
Exclusion  of  members,  the  right  of  New 
Testament  churches,  339. 

Existence  of  God  antedates  that  of  angels, 
men,  or  worlds,  20. 
explains  man  and  the 
universe,  11. 

i explains  the  indications 

of  design  in  the  world, 

21. 

key  to  unlock  othef 
mysteries,  12. 
mystery  of,  12. 
taken  for  granted,  11. 
Ezra  restores  Jerusalem,  191. 

F. 

Faith,  257. 

Abraham’s,  283. 
blind  man  cured  through,  285. 
capability  of  growth  of,  302. 
Christ  received  through,  284. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


415 


Faith,  connection  between  works  and, 
286. 

expressed  by  trust,  272. 
grace  and,  go  together,  286. 
m Christ,  270. 

means  surrender  to  Christ, 
272. 

in  the  existence  of  Christ  alone 
does  not  save,  269. 
is  toward  Christ,  272. 

James  on,  283. 
justification  through,  283. 
lack  of,  siu,  271. 

manifested  through  obedience,  283. 
necessary  tc  comprehension  of 
creation,  117. 
of  demons,  269. 
of  Thessalonian  church,  302. 
prompts  to  holy  life,  289. 
requires  works,  270. 
what  is,  269. 

what  it  involves,  244,  245. 
words  of  Christ  concerning,  271. 
Faithfulness  of  God,  59. 

Fuller,  Andrew,  62,  104. 

on  atonement,  242. 
on  first  resurrection, 383. 
Fuller,  Dr.  Richard,  on  resurrection  of 
the  body,  379. 

Gr. 

Gabriel,  67,  145. 

Galilee,  Christ  not  born  in,  193. 

General  Assembly,  337. 

General  Judgment,  390-398. 

fallen  angels  judged 
at,  397. 

righteous  judged  at, 
393. 

wicked  judged  at,  394. 

Gethsemane,  145. 

Glorification  of  the  redeemed,  323. 

God,  adopted  ones  recognized  by,  297. 
attributes  of,  42. 

character  of,  only  known  through 
revelation,  25. 

chastises  wisely  and  lovingly,  295. 
eternal  power  of,  14. 
eternity  of,  44. 
existence  of,  11-21. 
faithfulness  of,  59. 

Father  and  Lawgiver,  235. 

First  Cause,  13. 
goodness  of,  53. 
grace  of,  55. 
holiness  of,  61. 
immutability  of,  46. 

'ustice  of,  56. 
ove  of,  304. 

manifest  in  the  flesh,  78. 
mercy  of,  55. 

not  the  author  of  sin,  102. 
not  the  soul  of  the  universe,  but  the 
mover  of  it,  17. 
omnipotence  of,  49. 
omnipresence  of,  48. 
omniscience  of,  51. 
orders  all  events  of  life,  132. 


God,  personality  of,  14. 

protection  of  his  children  by,  294. 
providence  of,  128. 
purposes  of,  97. 

required  Christ  to  suffer  for  sinner* 

235. 

self-existence  of,  19,  43. 

Source  of  all  power,  19. 
union  with,  the  life  of  the  soul,  167. 
unity  of,  45. 
veracity  of,  58. 

well  pleased  with  his  Son,  248. 

with  the  atonement  of 
his  Son,  248. 

will  of,  305. 

wills  his  people  shall  be  holy,  295. 
wisdom  of,  60. 
worship  of,  26. 

wrath  of,  only  excited  by  sin,  234. 
Good  works,  must  be  accompanied  by 
prayer,  320. 
nature  of,  313,  316. 
necessity  of  love  with,  314. 
of  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
314. 

Paul  concerning,  312. 

Peter  concerning,  313. 
pertaining  to  the  body,  316. 
pertaining  to  the  soul,  317. 
refer  to  outward  acts,  313. 
what  is  meant  by,  312. 
Goodness  of  God,  53. 

to  angels,  53. 
to  men,  54. 

Gospel,  duty  of  all  to  believe,  244. 

command  of  Jesus  concerning, 
319. 

necessity  to  preach,  318. 
what  is  belief  of  the?  244. 

Grace  of  God  to  men,  55. 

Great  commission,  determines  the  sub- 
jects of  baptism, 
351. 

forbids,  in  effect,  the 
baptism  of  unbe- 
lievers, 353. 
how  understood  in 
apostolic  times,  354, 
363. 

makes  baptism  pre- 
cede the  Lord’s 
Supper,  362-364. 
requires  the  baptism 
of  believers,  356. 

Greek  authors,  use  of  word  repentance 
by,  265. 

H. 

Haggai,  prophecy  concerning  second 
temple,  191. 

Hall,  P.obert,  15. 

on  atonement,  242. 
considered  Pedobaptists  as 
unbaptized,  361. 

Terms  of  Communion  of, 
362. 

would  admit  unbaptized  tc 
Lord’s  Supper,  361. 


416 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Happiness,  meaning  of  term,  53. 
Heathen,  God  known  by  the,  13. 

nations  at  the  judgment,  394. 
standard  of  right,  30. 

Heaven,  399-405. 

both  a place  and  a state,  400. 
do  departing  believers  go  thith- 
er? 375. 

is  it  different  from  paradise? 
375. 

what  its  attractions  are,  400- 
404. 

Hell,  405-410. 

place  of  punishment  for  the  wick- 
ed, 405. 

proofs  of  its  existence,  405,  406. 
Herod,  192. 

Hexapla  of  Mystery , the,  79. 

Hibbard,  Dr.,  on  baptism  and  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  365. 

Hodge,  Dr.  A.  A.,  63. 

Holiness,  absence  of,  in  unregenerate 
heart.  299. 
of  God,  61. 

combines  all  his  other  attri- 
butes, 62. 

under  Mosaic  and  Christian 
dispensations,  299. 

Holy,  why  used  before  the  name  of  the 
Spirit,  95. 

Holy  Spirit,  acts  of,  92. 

blasphemy  against,  94. 
called  God,  92 
Comforter,  91 , 293. 
deity  of,  92. 

divine  perfections  of,  93. 

in  baptism,  92. 

not  an  influence  or  energy, 

67. 

not  translated  Holy  Ghost  in 
Old  Testament,  95. 
personality  of,  91. 
sent  by  Father  and  Son,  69. 
“seven  spirits”  represent, 

68. 

teaches  the  inspired  writers, 
40. 

work  of,  326. 
works  miracles,  94. 

Hope,  Christ  the  foundation  of,  303. 
increase  of,  303. 
sanctifying  tendency  of,  303. 
Household  baptisms,  355. 

I. 

Immensity  of  God,  48. 

Immersion,  Calvin’s  testimony  to,  346. 

Campbell,  George,  testimony 
to,  346. 

Chalmers’  testimony  to,  346. 
essential  to  baptism,  351. 
the  “practice  of  the  early 
church,”  346. 

Stuart,  Dr.  Moses, testimony 
to,  34o. 

symbolic  import  of  baptis- 
mal form,  348 


Immortality  of  angels,  141. 

of  the  soul,  28. 
Immutability,  of  Christ,  84. 

of  God,  46,  84. 
Independency,  337. 

what  truths  it  affirms,  337 
Infants  not  saved  through  their  faith,  354 
Inspired  writers,  diversity  of  style  in,  40. 
Inspiration,  degrees  of,  39. 

differs  from  revelation,  40. 
Instinct,  158. 

Intellect  and  morality  not  necessarily 
connected,  27. 

Intercessor,  qualifications  of  Christ  as, 
248. 

Intercession,  meaning  of,  246. 

of  Christ,  246. 

authoritative,  249. 
basis  of,  247. 
for  his  disciples,  252, 
253. 

objects  of,  251. 
sympathetic,  250. 
typified  by  Jewish 
high  priest,  247. 
where  made,  247. 
of  Jewish  high  priest,  247. 
Intermediate  state,  371. 

three  leading  views 
of,  371-377. 

Isaac,  offering  of,  283. 

Isaiah,  19,  40. 

sense  of  unworthiness  of,  307. 
vision  of,  76. 


J. 

Jacob,  137. 

James,  37. 

Jehovah,  the  name  of  Jesus,  77. 
Jeremiah,  32,  40. 

Jerusalem,  40. 

Jesus,  death  of,  corresponds  to  the 
prophecies,  195. 

Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament,  77. 
owned  by  Thomas,  77. 
prophecies  concerning  the  Mes- 
siah ail  fulfilled  in,  189, 196. 
teaches  the  self-existence  of  God. 
43. 

the  Word,  77. 

treatment  received  by,  194. 

Joab,  142. 

Job,  10,  37. 

self-righteousness  of,  rebuked,  306. 
John  the  Baptist,  76. 

denies  that  he  is  the 
predicted  prophet, 
212. 

on  repentance,  263, 264 
John  the  Evangelist,  37,  40,  88. 

Jordan,  40. 

Joseph,  104,  137. 

Joshua,  59. 

Judah,  the  Messiah  descended  from  tribe 

of,  189. 

Judea,  40. 

Judgment,  the  General,  390-398. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


417 


Judgment,  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New 
Testament,  390. 
its  necessity  and  propriety, 
390. 

who  judged  at,  393-398. 
Judgment-day  will  vindicate  the  ways  of 
God,  56. 

Junius,  use  of  word  “atone,”  222. 

Justice  of  God,  56. 

Justification,  as  used  by  Ovid,  275. 

as  used  by  Solomon,  275. 
by  faith  in  Christ,  283. 
by  faith  meets  our  necessi- 
ties, 287. 

precedes  all  ceremo- 
nies, 288. 

prompts  to  holy  life, 
289. 

shows  the  beauty  of 
holiness,  288. 
shows  the  evil  of  sin, 
288. 

by  faith,  not  for  faith,  284. 
by  man  impossible,  277. 
declares  the  sinner  inno- 
cent, 275. 

does  not  make  holy,  274. 
does  not  make  just,  275. 
does  not  regenerate,  274. 
importance  of,  274. 
impossible  by  works,  276. 
not  by  repentance,  278. 
of  Abraham,  283. 
prerogative  of  God,  287. 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
of,  274. 

teaching  of  Scripture  con- 
cerning, 280. 

through  Christ  alone,  279. 
when  it  takes  place,  282. 


K. 

Kendrick,  Prof.  A.  C.,  D.  D.,  44. 

Kingdom  of  Christ,  215. 

mediatorial,  216. 
parables  concern- 
ing, 217, 

L. 

Lamb  of  God,  Christ  the,  239. 

Lawgiver,  Christ  the,  220. 

Lazarus,  150. 

Lewis’s  History  of  Translations , 345. 
Limits  of  human  knowledge,  51. 

Lord’s  Supper,  349. 

a church  ordinance,  353. 
a commemorative  ordi- 
nance, 358. 

by  whom  to  be  observed, 
360. 

Lutheran  view  of,  359. 
origin  of,  358. 

Romish  theory  of,  359. 
symbolic  import  shows  it 
follows  baptism,  367. 


Love,  essential  to  worship,  26. 

greatest  of  Christian  graces,  304. 
increases  likeness  to  God,  304. 
must  increase,  304. 
to  God  inspires  love  to  men,  27. 
prompts  to  good  works,  313. 
Lydia,  baptism  of  her  household,  355. 

M. 

Macknight,  translation  by,  340. 

Majority,  its  rights  in  a church,  338,  340. 
Man,  act  of,  cannot  have  retrospective 
bearing,  277. 

can  do  no  more  than  his  duty,  277. 
can  do  nothing  to  remit  his  pen- 
alty, 179. 

can  not  lessen  his  penalty  by  su/ 
fering,  181. 

capacity  of,  to  recognize  God,  13. 
condemnation  of  just,  179. 
condition  as  a sinner,  177. 
condition  in  Eden,  161. 
created  a holy  being,  160. 
created  a rational  being,  158. 
created  in  the  image  of  God,  123. 
death  of,  167. 
depravity  of,  178,  182. 
disgraced  by  sin,  249. 
does  not  wish  his  depravity  re- 
moved, 183. 

driven  from  Eden,  168. 
existence  of,  explained,  11. 
fall  of,  162. 

fallen  condition  of,  174. 
first  state  of,  157. 
free  agent,  104. 
immortality  of  soul  of,  205. 

Jesus  the  Advocate  for,  250. 
liable  to  disease  and  death,  171. 
made  in  the  image  of  God,  158. 
mortality  of  his  body,  205. 
needs  a Saviour,  177,  184. 
present  state  of,  169. 
repelled  from  God,  250. 
sin  of,  165. 

subject  to  sorrow,  170. 
temptation  of,  164. 

Matter  the  instrument  of  mind,  17. 
Matthew,  40. 

McCosh  on  Divine  Government , 132, 
Mediator,  all  saints  from  Adam  to  Chrtsi 
saved  by  prospective  death 
of,  211. 

capability  of  death,  210. 
holiness  essential  to,  200. 
includes  offices  of  Prophet, 
Priest,  and  King,  212. 
one  who  interposes,  208. 
self-disposal  of,  209. 

Mercy  of  God  to  men,  55. 

Messiah,  81. 

to  come  during  the  existence  o / 
second  temple,  192. 

Desire  of  all  nations,  191. 
foretold  by  Daniel,  191. 
forsaken  by  God,  195. 

Jewish  opinion  of,  188, 


<U8 


GENERAL  INDEX . 


Messiah,  manner  of  his  death  predicted, 
195. 

place  of  his  birth,  prophecy  ful- 
filled, 192. 

predictions  of,  fulfilled  in  Je- 
sus, 189. 

time  of  his  coming,  190. 
treatment  of,  foretold,  194. 
tribe  and  family  of  the,  189. 
two  uatures  in  one  person  in, 
199. 

Michael,  67. 

Microscope,  46. 

Millennium,  383. 

Milton,  152. 

Mind,  can  be  expanded  indefinitely,  31. 
seat  cl  power,  15. 
source  of  happiness,  54. 
Missionary  enterprise,  319. 

Miracles,  39. 

Moral  character  unchangeable  in  eter- 
nity, 410. 

Moral  organization  of  man,  54. 

Morality  and  intellect  not  necessarily 
connected,  27. 

Moses,  10,  37,  40. 

adoption  of,  291. 

lifted  up  the  brazen  serpent,  a 
type  of  Christ,  271. 
on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration, 
213. 

prophecies  of  Christ,  212. 
sanctifies  the  tabernacle,  298. 
Mosaic  account  of  creation,  117. 

Motion,  the  proof  of  a Deity,  18. 

Mystery , the  Hexapla  oft  79. 


N. 

Nazareth,  193. 

reputation  of,  194 
Nicodemus,  82. 

answer  of  Jesus  to,  263. 
Noyes,  George  R.,  D.  D.,  13,  29, 78, 125, 212, 
326,  330. 

Nymph  as,  330. 

o. 

Obedience  shown  by  faith,  283. 

Old  Testament  references  to  Christ,  188. 
Omnipotence,  of  Christ,  83. 

of  God,  49. 

proved  by  the  creation, 
50,  84. 

source  of  joy  to  his  crea- 
tures, 51. 

Omnipresence,  of  Christ,  82. 

of  God,  48. 

Omniscience,  of  Christ,  82. 

of  God,  51. 

absurd  theory  concerning, 

52. 

argues  the  fulfilment  of  his 
promises,  59. 

Onesimus,  Paul  assumes  the  debts  of,  282. 
Ovid  on  the  judgments  of  the  ancients, 
275. 


P. 

Paley,  Dr.  158. 

Parable  of  the  Sower,  270. 

Paradise,  do  dying  believers  go  thither. 

374. 

scriptural  meaning  of,  374, 375. 

Pastor,  originally  synonymous  with  bish 
op  and  elder,  337. 

“ modern,”  337. 

Pastors,  332,  333. 

Paul,  12,  13,  14,  20,  27, 29,  37,  40,  59,  61,  78, 
83,  86,  87,  90,  93,  106,  111,  112. 
answer  of,  to  the  jailer,  273. 
conception  of  heaven,  255. 
concerning  good  works,  312. 
debts  of  Onesimus  imputed  to,  282. 
on  justification,  280. 
on  sanctification,  299. 
preached  repentance,  264. 
refuses  worship,  88. 
sense  of  unworthiness  of,  307. 
to  the  Philippian  church,  294. 
to  the  Romans,  294. 
use  of  word  “justification”  by,  276. 
voyage  to  Rome,  110. 

Payson,  Dr.  Edward,  on  the  cross  of 
Christ,  126. 

Pedobaptist  theologians,  their  testimony 
to  immersion,  345,  346. 

Pedobaptists  who  teach  that  baptism  pre- 
cedes the  Supper,  364. 

Pentecost,  Peter’s  sermon  at,  354. 

Perfection  precludes  change,  46. 

Person,  use  of  the  word  in  the  Trinity,  64. 

Personality  of  God,  14. 

Perseverance  of  saints,  321. 

arguments  lot, 
322,  326. 

objections  to,  326. 

Peter,  37,  40,  44,  92,  106. 

concerning  good  works,  313. 
conflict  of  faith  and  unbelief  in, 
325. 

on  repentance,  264. 

refuses  worship  from  Cornelius,  88. 

Pharisees,  40. 

Philip,  his  labors  in  Samaria,  355. 

Pilate,  Christ  before,  215. 

Pliny  on  the  future  state,  27. 

Power,  God  source  of  all,  19. 
meaning  of,  14. 
mind  the  seat  of,  15. 
of  angels,  19. 
of  God  eternal,  14, 15. 

Prayer,  an  act  of  worship,  87. 
necessity  of,  309,  320. 
of  Christ,  252. 

for  admittance  of  his  disci- 
ples to  heaven,  254. 
their  preservation  from  evil, 
252. 

their  sanctification,  253. 
their  unity,  253. 

Predestination,  105. 

does  not  dispense  with 
use  of  means,  109,  111. 
requires  repentance  and 
faith,  111. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


419 


Predestination,  supposes  calling  and  jus- 
tification, 110. 

Presbytery,  337. 

Presbyterianism,  337. 

President  of  United  States,  70,  353. 
Priscilla,  330. 

Privileges  of  adoption,  292-297. 
Probation,  none  after  death,  410. 
Promises  of  God,  59. 

Prophecy, concerning  Christ,  189, 191, 192, 
193,  194,  195,  196. 

Daniel’s,  concerning  th.)  Mes- 
siah, 191. 

Haggai’s,  concerning  second 
temple,  191. 

Prophet,  Christ  the  great,  212. 
functions  of  a,  212. 
original  meaning  of,  213. 
Providence  of  God,  128. 

a consolation  to 
saints,  135. 
a mystery  that  will 
be  explained,  136. 
controls  creation, 
130. 

orders  events,  132. 
preserves  creation, 
129. 

Punishment,  because  of  guilt,  57,  231,  407. 
fire  a symbol  of,  406. 
not  exemplary,  231. 
philosophy  of,  231. 
primary  object  of,  231. 
secondary  object  of,  231. 
Punishment  of  wicked,  how  merited,  57, 
231,  407,  408. 
is  not  merely  re- 
morse, 407. 
will  be  endless, 
408,  410. 

will  be  fearful, 
406. 

Purposes,  of  God,  are  eternal,  97. 

are  free,  99. 
are  full  of  wisdom,  97. 
are  unchangeable,  100. 
do  not  force  the  will  of 
man,  103. 

do  not  make  him  the 
author  of  sin,  102. 
efficient  and  permissive, 
102. 

of  men,  often  unwise  and 
changeable.  101. 

Q. 

Quarterly,  Baptist , 207. 

R. 

Redemption  displays  the  wisdom  of  God, 
61. 

Reformation,  must  follow  repentance, 

265. 

not  repentance,  264. 
Regeneration,  256. 

a spiritual  change,  258. 


Regeneration,  and  sanctification,  299. 
Author  of,  261. 
beginning  of  divine  life  in 
the  soul,  259. 

breaks  the  power  of  sin, 
300. 

Calvin  on,  256. 
conforms  man’s  will  to 
God’s  will,  259,  306. 
depravity  causes  the  need 
of,  260. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  on, 

257. 

faith  simultaneous  with, 

258. 

hatred  of  sin  the  primary 
impulse  to,  266. 
how  effected,  a mystery, 
263. 

inseparable  from  repent- 
ance and  faith,  256. 
makes  the  sinner  the  child 
of  God,  259,  260. 
man  cannot  enter  heaven 
without,  260. 

man  could  not  be  happy  in 
heaven  without,  261. 
means  of,  262. 

the  Bible,  262. 
Christian  churches, 
262. 

gospel  ministry,  262. 
places  the  affections  on 
God,  259. 

referred  to  under  the  im- 
agery of  creation,  262. 
Repentance,  as  set  forth  by  the  apostles, 
264. 

Calvin  on,  256. 

Campbell,  Dr.  George,  on, 
264. 

cannot  atone  in  human  oi 
divine  government  279. 
cannot  justify,  278. 
change  of  mind  and  heart 
264. 

Conant.,  Dr.,  on,  265. 
Edwards,  Jonathan,  on,  259. 
God  commands,  269. 
importance  of,  263. 
involves  consciousness  of 
personal  sin,  265. 
of  the  evil  of  sin,  266. 
of  the  lack  of  excuse 
for  sin,  266. 
hatred  of  sin,  266. 
purpose  to  forsake  sin, 
268. 

sorrow  for  sin,  267. 
inseparable  from  regenera- 
tion, 286. 

John  on,  264. 

John  the  Baptist  on,  264. 
Paul  on,  264. 

must  be  followed  by  re  for* 
mation,  265. 
of  David,  206. 
preached  by  Jesus,  164. 


420 


general  index. 


Repentance  preached  by  John  the  Bap- 
tist, 263. 
by  Paul,  264. 
by  Peter,  264. 

primary  and  secondary 
meaning  of  word,  264. 
toward  God,  272. 
use  of  the  word  among 
Greeks,  265. 

‘Reprobation,”  God’s  purpose  of,  113. 

none  except  in  connec- 
tion with  sins,  113. 

Restoration  of  members,  the  right  of  the 
churches,  339. 

Resurrection,  378. 

anticipated  by  baptism, 
350. 

of  Christ  procures  that  of 
believers,  350. 

Christians  in  the,  385-388. 
denied  by  some  Corinth- 
ians, 350. 

the  first  and  the  second, 
380-383. 

Fuller,  Andrew,  on  the 
first,  383. 

Fuller,  Dr.  Richard,  on, 
379. 

increase  of  believers’  joy 
at,  377. 

incredible  apart  from  rev- 
elation, 379. 
meaning  of,  380. 
of  the  dead,  85. 
the  wicked  after,  384. 
will  take  place  at  second 
coming  of  Christ,  382. 
Reuben  forfeited  his  birthright,  189. 
Revelation  alone  teaches  the  way  of  sal- 
vation, 29. 

assures  a future  state,  27. 
of  Christ  in  the  Bible,  36. 
fixes  the  standard  of  right 
and  wrong,  26. 
meaning  of  the  word,  40. 
necessity  of,  25. 
teaches  of  future  rewards 
and  punishments,  29. 
teaches  true  worship,  25. 
Right  traceable  to  the  nature,  not  to  the 
will,  of  God,  26. 

Righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  sin- 
ners, 280. 

Ripley,  Dr.,  Notes  on  Hebrews , 211. 

s. 

Sacrifice  of  Christ  makes  intercession 
efficacious,  248. 

Sacrifices,  animal,  lack  of  dignity  and 
worth  in,  240. 

animal,  make  only  ceremonial 
atonement,  240. 
consummat  ed  in  the  death  of 
Christ,  239. 

divine  appointment  alone 
gives  no  sufficient  worth 
to,  240. 


Sacrifices,  Epistle  to  Hebrews  on,  238. 
ofi'ered  by  Abel,  238. 

bv  Abraham,  238. 
by  Cain,  238. 
by  Job,  238. 

prefigure  sacrifice  on  th« 
cross,  238. 
seal  placed  on  ??9. 

Sadducees,  40. 

Saints,  perseverance  of,  320. 

Salvation,  none  without  expiatory  suf- 
ferings, 227. 

of  infants  not  depending  on 
their  faith,  354. 
plan  of,  its  reception  by  Jews 
and  Greeks,  33. 
the  Bible  gives  the  only  clue, 
29. 

Samaria,  Philip’s  labors  in,  355. 
Sanctification,  253. 

and  faith,  302. 
and  hope,  303. 
and  love,  305. 
by  suffering,  296. 
conforms  human  to  di- 
vine will,  305. 
evidences  of,  306,  311. 
has  its  origin  in  regener- 
ation, 299. 

implies  crucifixion  of  sin, 
301. 

impossibility  in  this  life 
of  perfect,  306. 
involves  holiness,  299. 
of  the  altar,  298. 
of  the  seventh  day,  298. 
of  the  tabernacle  and  ves- 
sels, 298. 

Paul  on,  299,  301. 
progressive  work,  300, 302. 
word  of  God  instrument 
of,  308. 

Sanctify,  as  used  in  the  Bible,  298. 

Satan  called  the  serpent,  163. 

sin  originated  with,  152. 

Saviour,  mail’s  need  of  a,  177. 

not  understood  until  the  day  ol 
Pentecost,  188. 

Old  Testament  references  to, 188. 
promised  in  Eden,  186. 
promised  to  Abraham,  187. 
Scriptures,  Common  Version  of,  343. 

how  translated,  343. 

Seal  on  anitnai  for  sacrifice,  239. 

Sealing  of  Christians,  326. 

Second  coming  of  Christ,  384. 
Self-existence  of  God,  43. 

proves  his  unity, 
45. 

Sennacherib,  145. 

Senses,  the,  a source  of  pleasure,  54 
Serpent,  the,  163. 

Session,  Presbyterian,  337. 

Seven  spirits,  the  Holy  Ghost,  68. 
Seventh  day,  sanctification  of,  298. 
Shakespeare,  his  use  of  word  “ aton* 
ment,”  221. 

Shiloh,  name  of  the  Messiah,  189. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


421 


Silas,  his  answer  to  the  jailer,  273. 

Sin,  began  in  unbelief,  166. 

conflict  of  human  with  divine  will, 
308. 

could  it  have  been  prevented?  165. 
crucifixion  of,  necessary,  301. 
hatred  of,  essential  to  repentance 
and  regeneration,  267. 

God’s  hatred  of,  shown  in  Christ’s 
death,  288. 

God  not  the  author  of,  102. 
hatred  of,  proof  of  sanctification,  308. 
infinitely  hateful  to  God,  234. 
intrinsic  demerit  in,  230. 
overruled  to  show  the  perfections 
of  God,  237. 
sorrow  for,  268. 
unbelief,  the  greatest,  271. 

Six  days  of  creation,  meaning  of,  124. 
Smith,  J.  Pye,  on  atonement,  226. 
Socinians  of  England  oil  death  of  Christ, 
227. 

Solomon,  use  of  word  “justification,”  276. 
Soul,  its  death  separation  from  God,  167. 

its  life  in  God,  167. 

Sower,  parable  of  the,  270. 

Spirit,  meaning  of  term,  139. 

not  necessarily  immortal,  141. 
original  residence  of  power,  141. 
Spurgeon,  Rev.  C.  H.,  79. 

Stephen  the  martyr,  87,  90,  373. 
Stephanas,  baptism  of  his  household,  356. 
Stuart,  Prof.  Moses,  letter  to  Dr.  Chan- 
ning,  65. 

Subjects  of  baptism,  351-357. 

determined  by 
Christ’s  commis- 
sion, 351. 

Suffering,  sanctification  by,  296. 
Symbolism  of  baptism,  348-351. 

of  Lord’s  Supper,  367. 
Sympathize,  meaning  of  the  Greek  word, 
251. 

Synod,  Presbyterian,  337. 

T. 

Tabernacle  and  vessels,  sanctification  of, 
298. 

Tekoah,  wise  woman  of,  142. 

Telescope,  46. 

Temple  of  God,  Christians  the,  93. 
Temple,  second,  prophecy  of  Christ’s 
coming  to,  191. 

Testament,  New,  reveals  the  Trinity,  66. 

Old,  concerning  Christ,  75. 
Old,  on  the  Trinity,  66. 
Testaments,  Old  and  New,  parts  of  the 
same  revelation,  39. 

Thsoloqy,  Dagg’s,  63. 

Dick’s,  58. 

Thessalonian  church,  faith  of,  302. 
Thomas  the  apostle,  77,  90. 

owns  the  deity  of  Christ,  241. 
Threatenings  of  God  fulfilled,  59. 
Tiberius,  emperor,  215. 

Time,  distinctions  of,  none  with  God,  45. 
Tongue,  consecration  cf  the,  318. 

36 


Translation  of  Bible,  King  James’s,  343. 

rules  of  the  king 
governing  it,  343. 

Transubstautiation,  359. 

Trinity  alluded  to  in  Old  Testament,  66. 

blasphemy  of  substituting  names 
of  angels  in,  67. 
connected  with  baptism,  66. 
doctrine  of,  64. 

its  mystery,  65. 
not  a useless  speculation,  70 
proved  by  use  of  personal 
pronouns,  68. 

revealed  in  New  Testament 

66. 

taught  by  Christ,  66. 
equality  of  nature  and  inequality 
of  office  in,  69. 
unity  in,  69. 

Truth,  meaning  of  word,  58. 

U. 

Unitarians  in  America  on  death  of  Christ, 
227. 

Unity  of  all  nations,  169. 
of  God,  169. 

of  persons,  difference  of  offices,  in 
Trinity,  69. 

Unworthiness,  sense  of,  necessary  to 
sanctification,  306. 

V. 

Veracity  of  God,  58. 

Voyage  to  Rome,  Paul’s,  110. 

w. 

Wall,  Dr.,  on  baptism  and  the  Loiu  a 
Supper,  364. 

Webster’s  Dictionary , 64. 

Weeks  of  years  in  Daniel,  191. 

Will,  force  of,  16.  , 

Wisdom  of  God  distinct  from  his  omnis- 
cience, 60. 

shown  in  his  works,  61. 
Word,  Christ  the,  77,  213. 

of  God  instrument  of  sanctifica- 
tion, 308. 

should  be  read  and  studied,  309. 
teaching  of,  a good  work,  308. 
Works  of  God  show  his  wisdom,  61. 
Worship,  belongs  only  to  God,  87. 
by  angels,  88. 
meaning  of,  86. 
paid  to  Christ,  87. 
prayer  an  act  of,  87. 
refused  by  Paul,  Barnabas,  and 
Peter,  88. 

Wrath  of  God  against  sin  shown  in  death 
of  Christ,  237. 
cannot  be  averted  without 
atonement,  234. 
excited  by  sin.  234. 
is  holy  and  just  indign* 
tion,  235. 

z. 

Zechariah,  20L 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURES, 


GENESIS. 


1 : 1 

...11,  50,  77, 116 

1 : 1-5  

1:2 

1:3 

50 

1:6-8 

118 

1 : 9-13 

119 

1 : 14-19... 

120 

1 : 20-23 ... 

121 

1 : 26 

66,  158 

1 : 26-27  ... 

202 

1 : 27 

176 

1 : 28 

2 : 3 

298 

2 : 7 

157,  202 

2 : 15-17... 

162 

2 : 17 

3:1  6 

3 : 12 

165 

3 : 14 

164 

3-15 

186 

3-19  

3 : 22 

66 

3 : 23,  24... 

169 

5 : 3 

176 

6 : 14 

» 353 

8 : 22 

109 

11  : 7 

12  ! 3 

187 

18  : 18 

21  : 33 

22  : 2 

23:3 

27  : 1 

42  • 36 

49  : 10 

EXODUS. 

12  : 

15  : 11 

12  : 11 

124 

29  : 37 

LEVITICUS. 

5:1 

...225 

6 : 11 

NUMBERS. 

7:1 

16  • 46-48 

222 

t3  : 10 

DEUTERONOMY. 


6:4.. 
29  : 29 , 

32  : 4 .. 

33  : 27 

23  : 14 

JOSHUA. 

3:9.. 

1 SAMUEL. 

14  : — 
24  : 16 

2 SAMUEL. 

..142 

,.145 

6 : 17 
19  : 35 

2 KINGS. 

1 CHRONICLES. 
5 : 1,  2 

28  : 9 52,  82 

2 CHRONICLES. 


16  : 19 ... 

EZRA. 

6 : 14... 

NEHEMIAH. 

9 : 6.... 

ESTHER. 

2 : 7 .... 

291 

JOB. 

5 : 7 .... 

7 : 20  . 

11  : 7-9 . 

17  : 9 .... 

26  : 9 .... 

26  : 13 .. 

94 

34  : 22 .. 

38  : 1,  2. 

38  : 7.... 

40  : 4 ... 

42  : 5,  6. 

>••••• 

PSALMS. 

1 : 2 309 

2 : 6 .. 216 


14  : 2,  3 

,175,  276 

17  : 15 

19  : 8-10 

22  : 16 

23  : 1,  2 

33  : 6-9 

83  : 9 

33:  11 

36  : 6 

45 : 6 

51  : 4 

62  : 11 

73 : 13 

77  : 19 

136 

84  : 11 

86  : 10 

90  : 2 

91  : 11,  12 

97  : 2 

102  : 27 

47 

103  : 13 

294 

103  : 15 

103  : 20 

104  : 24 

104  : 27,  28 

110  : 3 

259 

132  : 11 

139  : 6 

51 

139  : 7 

94 

139  : 7-10  

139  : 7-12 

145  : 3 

145  : 9 

55 

145:15,  16 

145  : 17 

147  : 5 

147  : 9 

129 

PROVERBS. 

11 : 30 

16  : 4 

19  : 2 

ECCLESIASTES. 

7 : 29 

...123,  160 

11  : 7 

54 

12:7 

..172,  378 

12  : 14 

390 

ISAIAH. 

6 : 3 

....62,  14€ 

6 : 3-5  

422 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURES. 


423 


6 : 8 66 

9 : 6 83,  205 

1 4 : 24 102 

28  : 17 56 

37  : 36 146 

40  : 3 76 

40  : 13,  14 100 

42  : 8 126 

42  : 21  224 

44  : 8 46 

45  : 22 46 

46  : 9,  10 52 

46  : 10 102 

53  : — 194 

53  :c,  6 72,  224 

53  : 10 236 

53  : 11  225 

53  : 12 203 

54  : 10 48 

JEREMIAH. 

2 : 19 168 

12  : 1 137 

23  : 23,  24 32 

B2  : 17 51 

EZEKIEL. 

56  : 26  262 

DANIEL. 

4 : 35 104,  135 

9 : 21 145 

9 : 25,  26 191 

12  : 2 385 

JONAH. 

3 : 5,  6 268 

MIC  AH. 

5 : 2 80,  192 

HAGGAI. 

2 : 7-9 191 

2 : 8 319 

ZECHARIAH. 

4 : 6 320 

13  : 7 ....201,  236 

MALACHI. 

3 : 1 76 

3 : 6 47,  84,  102 

MATTHEW. 

2 : 6.... 81 

2 : 23 194 

3:1,  2 263 

3 : 2 265 

3 : 11 346 

4 : 10 87 

5 : 16 312 

5 : 29 406 

C : 10 147,  305 

6 : 20 399 

8:12 407 

8 : 28,  29 156 

8 : 29 397 

10  : 22 327 

10 : 28  406 

10  : 37 89 


11 : 19 

194 

11  : 20,  21 

268 

11  : 22  24 

11  : 26 

53 

11  : 27 

11  : 28 

219 

11  : 29 

12  : 18 

70 

12  : 24  

12  : 28 

94 

12  : 37 

393 

13  : 38 

13  : 41 

..151,  217,  382 

13  : 43 

387 

16  : 18 

217 

17  : 5 

17:17  

339 

18  : 10 

18  : 15-17 

341 

18  : 18-20 

352 

18  : 20 

83 

19  : 26 

20  : 28 

21  : 9 

190 

21  : 10,  11 

22  : 29  

22  : 37  

313 

22  : 42 

23  : 33 

406 

24  : 31 

151 

25  : 31 

384 

25  : 31-46 

389 

25  : 34  

97 

25  : 35,  36 

393 

25  : 35-40 

316 

25  : 46 

...397,407,  408 

26  : 11 

317 

26  : 38  

203 

26  : 53 

27  : 35 

196 

27  : 46 

236 

28  : 19 

66,  362 

28  : 19-20 

219 

28  : 20 

MARK. 

1 ; 1 

362 

1 : 2,  3 

1 : 15 

3 : 28-30  

95 

3 : 29 

6 : 12 

264 

7 : 21-23 

178 

9 : 43 

9 : 44 

10  : 51,  52 

285 

12:  29.... 

46 

12  : 30 

...74,  180,  277 

16  : 15,  16 

LUKE. 

1 : 26,  27 

2:4 

193 

2 : 10, 11 

2 : 14 

143 

2 : 52 

203 

7 : 24 

138 

8:  11 

8 : 12 

8 : 13 

10  : 20 

11:42 

12  : 5 

12  : 33 

154 

399 

296 

12  : 48 

13  : 3... 

14  : 10  ..  

! 14  : 26 

15  : 10 

139,  149 

16  : 11 

16  : 16 

16  : 19-31 

16  : 22 

150 

16  : 28 

16  : 31 

395 

17  : 10 

18  : 27 

.’. .’.380 

20  : 36 

22  : 31,  32 

253 

22  : 32 

325 

23  : 43 

24  : 26 

24  : 27 

24  : 39 

24  : 46,  47 

24  : 47  

24  : 51 

375,  399 

JOHN.  ' 

1:1 

1 : 1,  2 

77 

1 : 3 

1 : 8 

1 : 13 

256,  260 

1 : 18 

213 

1 : 21 

1 : 23 

76 

1 : 29  

1 : 46 

!.194 

2 : 24 

272 

3:3  

956 

3 : 5 

3 : 6 

260 

3 : 7 

261 

3:8 

..  263 

3 : 13 

82 

3 : 14-18 

271 

3:  16 

3 : 18 

283 

3 : 35 

3 : 36 

234  27? 

4 : 1,  2 

........ ~.....262 

5 : 22-27 

391 

5 : 23 

87 

5 : 26 

43 

5 : 28,  29 

86,  382 

5 : 39 

188 

6 : 27 

239,  326 

6 : 35 

271 

6 : 38 

6 : 42 

182 

6 : 63 

261 

7 : 24 

215 

7 : 46 

214 

7 : 52 

193 

8 : 40 

200,  201 

424 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURES . 


8 : 44 

182 

8 : 46 

209 

8 : 51 

168 

8 : 56 

187 

10  • 11 

73 

10  : 18 

10  : 27-29 

325 

10  : 28,  29 

10  : 32 

11  : 25,  26 

271 

V2  : 41 

76 

12  : 48 

396 

13  : 7 

136,  401 

14  : 2,3 

255,  400 

14:  16 

91 

14  : 19  

325 

14  : 26 

. 69,  91 

14  : 30 

38 

15  : 1,  5 

324 

15  : 26 

69,  92 

16  : 8,  9 

271 

16  : 14 

69,  92 

17  : — 

247,  252 

17  : 3 

46 

17  : 5 

77,  81 

17  : 15 

252 

17  : 17 

58,  253,  308 

17  : 21 

254 

17  : 24 

254,  405 

18  : 11 

236 

18  : 36,  37 

215 

20  : 28 

77,  241 

21  : 15,  16 

21  : 17 

21  : 19 

368 

ACTS. 


1 : 

: 24 

2 : 

: 23 

104 

2 

: 36 

2 : 

: 38 

.264,  350,  363 

2: 

: 41 

2: 

: 42 

363 

3 : 

: 19 112, 

, 149,  257,  264 

3 : 

: 21 

3 : 

: 22 

4 : 

: 32 

4 : 

: 35 

5 : 

: 3,  4 

5 : 

: 30 

6 : 

: 3,  4 

335 

7 : 

: 59 

8 : 

: 12 

355,  364 

9 : 

: 36 

10: 

: 2 

355 

10: 

: 26 

10: 

: 38 

10  : 

: 42 

391 

10  : 

: 43 

10  : 

: 47 

13  : 

: 39 

13: 

: 48 

14: 

: 14  18 

15: 

: 8 

82 

15: 

: 9 

16 

: 30,  31 

273 

16  : 

: 32,  34 

16 

: 33 

16:40 

355 

8 : 30  

17  : 26 

169 

8 : 33 

17  : 28 

8 : 33,  34 

17  : 30 

264 

8 : 34 

17  : 30,  31 

9 : 5 

17  : 31 

10  : 4 

280 

17  : 32 

378 

10  : 10 

18  : 8 

,355,  356 

10  : 13 

19  : 32,  39,  41.. 

329 

11  : 33 

.52,  61,  99 

20  : 21 

264,  271 

11  : 34 

100 

20  : 28 

333 

11  : 36 

22  : 16 

350 

13  : 3 

312 

24  : 15 

14  : 1 

26  : 8 

14  : 12 

390 

26  : 18 

302 

14  : 17 

, 217 

26  : 20 

15  : 13 

16  : 13 

106 

ROMANS. 

16  : 16 

1 : 3 

16  : 26 

409 

1 : 18 

234 

1 : 19,  20 

13 

1 CORINTHIANS. 

1 : 20 

........394 

1 : 2 

87 

1 : 28 

1 : 16 

2:5 

394 

1 : 30 

272 

2 : 12 

395 

2 : 10 

93 

2 : 12  16 

2 : 16  

100 

2 : 14,'  15 

30 

3:  1 

299 

3 : 2 

3 : 11 

324 

3 : 9,  19 

177 

3 : 16 

93 

3 : 10 

276 

3 : 21-23 

371 

3 : 20 

..180, 

277,  278 

4 : 5 

393 

3 : 23 

.276,305 

4 : 15 

262 

3 : 24 

280,  286 

5:1 

339 

3 : 25 

239 

5:4  5 

339 

3 : 25,  26 

224 

5 : 13 

3 : 26 

228  280 

6 : 2,  3 

394 

4 : 2-5 

6 : 19 

93 

4:6-8 

282 

9 : 14 

4 : 11 

283 

9 : 17 

4 : 16 

10  : 31 

126 

4 : 25 

11  : 14 

379 

5 : 1 

11  : 23-26 

357 

5 : 2 

12  : 8-10 

94 

5 : 8 

12  : 11 

5 : 9* 

280 

13  : 9 

136 

5 : 10 

13  : 12 

401 

5 : 11 

.221,  222 

13  : 13 

5 : 12 

.165,  173 

15  : 3,  4 

349 

5 : 13 

15  : 22 

165 

5 : 16 

173 

15  : 24-28 

...216,  391 

5 : 19 

15  : 29 

5 : 21 

287 

15  : 47 

6 : 2 

15  : 49 

385 

6 : 3-5 

15  : 50 

6:4 

15  : 52 

6 : 11 

.256,  356 

15  : 56,  57 

369 

6 : 23 

181  408 

16  • 15 

356 

7 : 12 

16  : 19 

7 : 13 

16  : 22 

7 : 14-25 

8 : 11 

2 CORINTHIANS. 

8 : 13 

1 : 20 

8 : 15 

292 

1 : 22 

..326 

8 : 16 



293 

2 : 6-8 

8 : 17 

296 

3:3 

262 

8 : 27 

4 : 4 

154 

8 : 28 

.136  295 

4 ; 6 

404 

8 : 29 

.108!  293 

4 : 17 

INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURES . 


425 


5  : 1 376 

5  : 6-8 376 

5  : 8 255 

5 : 10 390 

5 : 17 256 

5 : 17,  18 262 

5 : 21 280 

6 : 18 291 

8 . 9 200 

12  : 2-4 374 

12  : 4 374 

13  : 14 67 

GALATIANS. 

1 : 4 252 

2 : 7 272 

3 : 13 73 

3  : 16 1S7 

3 : 26 257 

g . 27  35(5 

4 : 4,  5.'. 33* * 7 5,  21 0 , *224,  280 

4 : 4-6  293 

5 : 17 300 

6 : 7 380 

6  : 8 - 327 

EPHESIANS. 

1  : 4 98,  107 

1  : 5 293 

1 : 6 285 

1  : 8 61 

2 : 1 259 

2  : 1-3 174 

2  : 3 177 

2  : 5 256,  259 

2  : 8 283 

2  : 10 Ill,  256,  314,  327 

2 : 11,  12 153 

2:  18 68 

3 : 8 307 

3  : 9-11 98 

3 : 10 99 

4 : 5 356 

4  : 11,  12 332 

4  : 13 299 

4  : 18 260 

4 : 24 123,  160 

4 : 30 92,  326 

5 : 2 248 

5  : 4 81 

5  : 6 234 

5  : 8 259 

5  : 23 314 

5 : 24 219 

6 : 25-27  329 

5 : 27 218 

PHILIPPIANS. 

l  : 1 333 

1  : 21 371 

1 : 23 255,  376 

2 : 7 200 

2 : 9-11 216 

2 . 10 391 

3 : 6 400 

1:9 280,  393 

3  : 13 306 


3 : 21. 

4 : 19 


.86,  380,  384 
294 


COLOSSIANS. 

1  : 5 399 

1 : 12 323 

1 : 13 217 

1 : 16 85,  126 

1 : 17 50,  85 

2 : 5 , 217 

2 : 12 348 

3 : 1-4 310 

3 : 10 123,  161,  256 

4 : 15 330 

1 THESSALONIANS. 

1 : 4 112 

1 : 10 234 

2 : 4 272 

3:12.  13 304 

4  : 16  . 380,  384 

4 : 17 255 

5 : 10 227 

2 THESSALONIANS. 

1 : 3 302 

1 : 7 146 

1 : 7-9 60 

1 : 7-10 382 

1 : 9 408 

2 : 13 106,  107,  111 

3 : 6 339 

1 TIMOTHY. 

1 : 11 272 

1 : 15 185 

1 : 17 44 

2 : 5 46,  209 

2:5,  6 245 

2 : 6 227 


165 

333 

333 

152 

......335 

78 

313 


2:  14 
3:1.. 

3:2.. 

3:6 
3 : IS 

3 : 16 

5 : 10 

6:  16 141 

6 : 18 313 

2 TIMOTHY. 

1 : 9 98,  107 

2 : 10 Ill 

2 : 15 334 

2 : 26 154 

4 : 1 391 

4  : 7,  8 328 


TITUS. 


1:3.. 
1:7.. 
2:7.. 
2 : 14 
3:8.. 


.272 

.333 

.313 

.227 

.320 


PHILEMON. 
Verse  18. 


HEBREWS. 

1 : 3 50,  83 

1 : 6 88 

1 : 7 14C 

1 : 8 76 

1 : 10-12 22,  84 

1 : 14 148 

2 : 9,  10 32 

2 : 10 226 

2 : 11 293 

2 : 14 200 

2 : 18 251 

3 : 12 271 

4 : 9 403 

4  : 13 52 

4 : 14-16 250 

4 : 15 38,  209 

4 : 16 .‘ 292 

5 : 4,  5 248 

5 : 9 227 

6 : 17,  18 109 

6 : 20 247 

7 : 14 190 

7  : 25 246 

7 : 26 209,  249 

8 : 10 262 

9  : 12 247 

9  : 14 93 

9 : 15-17 211 

9 : 24 247 

9 : 26 224,  228,  235,  238 

9 : 27 134,  378 

9 : 28 151.  225,  326,  372 

10  : 4 240 

10  : 24 313 

10  : 28,  29 396 

10  : 39 270 

11  : 3 116 

11  : 10 310 

12  : 3 195 

12  : 10 295 

12  : 22 147 

13  : 8 84 

13  : 20 332 

JAMES. 

1 : 13 103 

1 : 17 47,  102 

1 : 18 262 

1 : 27 317 

2 : 14 ..  269 

2 : 19 46,  269 

2 : 26 289,  376 

3 : 9 54,  159 

1 PETER. 

1 : 2 Ill 

1 : 3,  4 296 

1 : 5 253,  322,  325 

1 : 10,  11 188 

1 : 12 .. 142 

1 : 15,  16 295 

1 : 16 62 

1 : 18-20 322 

1 : 20 98 

1 . 23 262 

2 : 2 309 

2:5 324 


426 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURES . 


2  : 7 324 

2  : 12 313 

2  24 225,  281 

2 ; 25 333 

3 : 18 94,  196,  209 

3  : 21 348,  356 

3  : 22 139,  247,  375 

5 : 1,  2 333 

5 : 4 334 


2 PETER. 

112 

41 

36,  213 

152,  156,  397 

44 

1  JOHN. 

1  : 1 200 

1:2 - 80 

8:1 .246 


1 : 10 
1 : 16 

1 : 21 
2:4.. 
4:8. 


248 

303 

294 

.385,  401 

303 

300 


2 : 23 52,  82 

4 : 8 44 

4 : 11 124 

5 : 9 88,  106 

5 : 12 88 

6 : 10 .. 137 


2  : 1,  2. 

2 : 25 .. 

3 : 1,  2. 

3 : 2.... 

3  : 3... 

3  : 9 .... 

3 : 20 52,  82 

4 : 7 259,  314 

4  : 10 55,  225 

4 : 16 305 

5 : 1 257 

5  : 5 303 

5  : 20 79 

JUDE. 

Verse  6 152,  156,  397 

REVELATION. 

1 : 4,  5 68 

1 : 5 350 

2:7 374 


6 : 16.... 

8:3 

12  : 9 

163 

14  : 13 

15  : 3 

15  : 4 

18  : 1 

19  : 6 

20  : 2 

20  : 4 

20  : 6 

20  : 12.... 

390,  392 

21 : 7 

22:  9 

22  16 

190,  211 

* 


